VERY defective new Ruger and disappointing customer service!

[TITAN308]

Ive heard that they run a "no questions asked" warranty type system (though they don't have a warranty technically on any gun).

Meaning even if you aren't the original owner, they would fix it if possible and it wasn't a clear case of abuse.

My five year old that has more sense of individual responsibility had a good laugh at it.

So now you've stooped to calling the OP dumber than 5 year old?

Real classy.

Sounds like hes going to have a great role model.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match.

 

[.45Guy]

So now you've stooped to calling the OP dumber than 5 year old?

Not quite, but yes, my five year old knows better than to pay for a toy she has played with that doesn't work. Also, I never called anyone stupid, their comments have done that.

 

[icanthitabarn]

I wonder if that gun would be valuable one day. It must be very rare, or was

 

[DMZ]

Here is my Ruger CS experience with my SR9:

I had a defective barrel that was getting peened by the slide. This was not uncommon in the first run of the SR9. I wrote a letter to Ruger and included a picture of my barrel. They called me and sent me a box with instructions on how to send the pistol back to them. I followed the instructions and put a note in the box thanking them for the prompt service and for paying the shipping. I got it back in two weeks and they included two magazines in the return box.

Next it got recalled for a trigger replacement. Again they sent me a shipping box and instructions. I again included a short note of thanks for again taking care of this matter with no cost to me. I sent it in and got it back about 30 days later, (they were busy replacing trigger groups for all SR9's, so I had to wait in line a bit). I got it back with two magazines and a nice Ruger SR9 cap for my trouble.

I now have 6 OEM mag's for my SR9 and a cap to cover my bald spot when I go to the range. Cost to me = well, nothing really.

 

[Bozwell]

I can't say I agree with .45guy putting this on the purchaser here. If you extend his logic a bit further, the manufacturer could be completely justified in not fixing the gun at all, despite its lack of rifling, because hey, buyer beware right? Whether or not the problem was discovered at the gun shop or at home is rather irrelevant in my mind anyways. Had the OP asked, I'm sure Ruger would have sent him a shipping label and he could have returned it directly to Ruger without involving the LGS. It's still an inconvenience to the OP and a problem that should have been caught by quality control.

I'm not saying the OP necessarily should get compensation for this, but I don't think it's that unreasonable. To start bashing someone because they didn't break the gun down at the gun shop and confirm that the manufacturer put rifling in the barrel is a bit silly.

 

[TITAN308]

Not quite, but yes, my five year old knows better than to pay for a toy she has played with that doesn't work. Also, I never called anyone stupid, their comments have done that.

[image removed]

 

[PRM]

It's not really dangerous. They're just not accurate and so the government considers it a "destructive device" having no legitimate use.

Well maybe not exactly. Legal ~ I won't comment on that ~ but, there was a time when revolvers were specifically ordered that way. In the era of Wild West Shows, more than one showman used a smooth bore SAA to shoot targets from horseback using shot loads.

http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/gallery.html

Pawnee Bill didn’t break all of those little glass balls with bullets. Instead, exhibition shooters riding in wild west shows fired small shot cartridges in Colt revolvers fitted with choked, smooth-bore barrels. Such guns would be classified as sawed-off shotguns today and taxed accordingly.

 

[.45Guy]

Whether or not the problem was discovered at the gun shop or at home is rather irrelevant in my mind anyways.

Has anyone even bothered reading the and attempting to comprehend mine or the original posts content? Never did I attempt to deny Ruger's culpability for releasing a defective product. However, I do take umbrage with the OP's notion that he should be compensated beyond the free repair for his time and travel. Frankly, none of this would have been necessary if he had done his due diligence. He should have never walked out of that shop with a smooth bore handgun. Yes, it is sheer laziness, to accept a product without at least making a cursory examination, and it would indeed take only a cursory exam to notice a smooth bore. Good day.

 

[.45Guy]

Is that a veiled threat BW?

 

[mgmorden]

Is that a veiled threat BW?

I'm pretty sure he was implying that you were digging yourself into a deeper hole. That's the way I took it anyways. I didn't interpret it as a threat.

 

[AFDavis11]

Let's try and keep things civil, we are all on the same side guys.

 

[Elkins45]

I've never bought a Ruger auto. I'm assuming they don't come with a test target like Sigs do? Makes me wonder what sort of testing they do before they let them out the door, as it's doubtful a smoothbore would pass any sort of reasonable accuracy test.

We are assuming the barrel was bored to rifling diameter and just not rifled, but that may be just an assumption. For all we know it might have been .030 or more undersized. Wonder how much of a pressure spike would result from 'power sizing' a bullet like that?

 

[.45Guy]

So I am digging myself deeper into logic and common sense. Works for me.

 

[COgunner]

45Guy: So it's understandable that the machinists, assemblers, QC inspectors, and whoever else at Ruger missed the defect, but it's my fault for not noticing before I left the store? Keep digging!

 

[Elkins45]

Is that a veiled threat BW?

I think he was referring to the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

FWIW, I don't know that Ruger owes the OP anything, but if I ran the company that let a smoothbore out of the plant I would have done more than send him a cooler bag.

 

[balance 740]

If you are going to purchase a mechanical device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm, you should be capable of determining if the equivalent of wheels on a car are curiously absent.

So what is Ruger's excuse? The OP is the one who DID realise the "wheels on the car were absent". If an automobile company sells a car with as obvious a problem as "wheels on the car were absent", they should get out of the business.

Obviously the issue wasn't noticed at the factory by the guys who are checking to make sure "wheels on the car were absent" never happens, so to blame the OP for missing what could be the most common assumption a pistol buyer would have, that rifled barrels should be rifled, is unreasonable in my opinion, as Ruger is who is at fault here.

They made it right. Good.

 

[Elkins45]

Item just added to the Ruger production checklist: look down the barrel.

 

[TITAN308]

For someone who claims to be able to handle logic and what not with ease I am a bit disappointed he did not get the picture reference.

I also see Mr. 45 is what we refer to as the "The 1UPer"

They are incapable of stopping and walking away and will fight to the death to leave the last post in a thread for fear that not doing so will somehow make him look weak and give the people the impression he is conceding.

You could literally post a picture of a banana after their post and they will come back to say something. Probably about how your banana picture is dumb.

 

[.45Guy]

45Guy: So it's understandable that the machinists, assemblers, QC inspectors, and whoever else at Ruger missed the defect, but it's my fault for not noticing before I left the store? Keep digging!

Digging what? Ruger made right on their defect. They accepted responsibility. You however demand additional compensation because:

the guys at the store told me Ruger would surely do something extra for me to compensate for my time and trouble. That sounded reasonable since the gun was unusable and possibly unsafe, I was without my new toy for over 3 weeks, and I had to drive a total of 84 miles to return and then pick up the gun.

It is your fault for not inspecting an item prior to purchase. Again, this isn't some hidden defect that wouldn't be readily noticeable, it is rather blatant. Look, you can clearly see a land in this small photo.

 

[TITAN308]

...asking them to compensate me in some way for the time, trouble, and expense...

You however demand additional compensation because...

You simply can't make up words and insert them where you want you know.

That is a strange version of earth you live on my friend. It is like opposite day, but year round or something?

 

[.45Guy]

From the OP

I contacted Ruger customer service on 1/29 and copied the CEO on the same date asking them to compensate me in some way for the time, trouble, and expense I encountered as a result of their gross negligence.

And I thought the talk of literacy rates falling was exaggerated...

 

[TITAN308]

I could have sworn "ask" and "demand" had two very different definitions last I knew.

I must have missed a memo.

However you literacy comment is quite ironic.

 

[.45Guy]

de·mand/diˈmand/




Noun:




An insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Okay, that's more than enough of that.

-C