[mr_dove]

I apologize if this is very old news to some of you. It is new news to some of us as well who are just learning about Ruger policy now that the AWB has expired.

This began with a thread in the general forum asking about why Ruger refuses to sell 20 round mini-14 mags to civivilians. Nobody seemed to know why or know the history of Bill Ruger's betrayal. This is all new to me as well.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109689&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

I was curious and decided to make a call to Ruger. They informed me that company policy is that they sel 15 round mags with 9mm handguns but that's it. Everything else is neutered.

I did some additional research and was astounded to learn that the high capacity magazine ban was the brain child of Bill Ruger. I did a few searches and read many articles on the net and a few other bulletin boards. This is the most informative article that I found.

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

Keep in mind that this is new news to me and many other THR members but I'm asounded that gun owners are still supporting Ruger even more than 10 years after the betrayal. The high capacity magazine ban has affected almost every one of us and yet we continue to buy their products.

My phone call to them has shown that they have not changed their tune now that Bill Sr. is dead either.

So, answer me this. Why is there no concerted effort to boycott Ruger. I sold my Ruger P89 because it was HUGE. I was even considering a 10/22 purchase but I'll never purchase another Ruger knowing this. Its just unacceptable.

[R.H. Lee]

When California structured the Roberti-Roos legislation back in 2000, the Ruger Mini-14 was not included on the list of banned 'assault weapons'. I wonder if or how this might play into their current 'policy'.

[El Tejon]

No boycott, because Benedict Bill gave a cool million to the NRA Museum.

20 round magazines are just not responsible for you serfs.

I remember Bill Ruger's betrayal. I will never forget.:fire:

[SoCalGeek]

Not that the mag thing would make a damned bit of difference since I live in CA, but I have no intention of ever buying a Ruger. Ever. I've shot quite a few of their guns, and I really like them. But unless they do something to make up for Bill's actions (selling full caps with their 9mms doesn't cut it), I won't give them a dime.

[Justin]

I haven't bought a new Ruger since I found out about Bill's belief that none of us peons could be trusted with magazines that held more than 10 rounds.

[Tag]

It's a shame, but I still want to pick up a 22/45 :)

[Art Eatman]

This was another of those sad situations where you give up a little in order to avoid giving up a lot.

For instance, the 1968 GCA gave us the Yellow Sheet. Had that not been developed in compromising between the NRA's friends and the gun-grabbers, we could well have been shafted with full registration. We were at a relatively low point in political power, and only the Lord knows how the vote might have gone.

Same deal with the 10-round mags. Pro-gun influence was at an ebb at the time. The limit on magazine size was a sop thrown out to avoid worse restrictions. It made the gun-grabbers look like they'd "done something" without really hurting us as shooters.

Politics always has been, is, and always will be the "art of the possible", with competing interests. Congress always has and always will do its best to ignore the Constitution when there is any loud public outcry to "Do Something!" Clinton's popularity and the media's PR campaign against EBRs provided the support to Do Something.

Bill Ruger may or may not have believed the 10-round mag thing was Good. I dunno. The only way to have any idea of the dealings would have been to be privy to the insider knowledge of vote counting. Odds are, though, it was his idea of a sop to the gun-grabbers.

Anyhow, that's why I've never had my stinger out for Ruger...

Art

[Standing Wolf]

After buying a Ruger Mark II, I'll never even consider buying anything from that company again. What a piece of junk!

[El Tejon]

Art, it was Bill Ruger that called me and everyone else here who owns magazines over 10 rounds "dishonest". "No honest man" needs . . . remember? I know you do.;)

Bill Ruger and his company are the lowest form of life--traitors who sought to save themselves by destroying our freedom. Traitors.

[rock jock]

Isn't the Mini-14 reason enough not to own a Mini-14?

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, well...

That's possibly just as much of a malapropism as Bush's "we won't have an all-volunteer military" or some such phrasing he made. I really doubt Bush meant that we'd go back to having a draft.

I dunno. People are all the time saying dumb stuff, and it often comes out different from what they intended. Hard for me to judge somebody on just one small portion of an entire lifetime.

Heck, I'd really hate to get totally negative about somebody over one particular statement. If I did, I'd have to quite being a moderator. :D Probably have to quit THR. :D:D

Art

[El Tejon]

Art, calling me dishonest is not a spoonerism or malapropism. It was a knowing or intentional act of betrayal.

If it was a malapropism, then why didn't Ruger's lawyer immediately issue a "clarification." *Looks at watch, taps foot while whistling* I'm still waiting for that "clarification" as to what old Billy Boy said.

If it was a malapropism, then why not rescind their policy of not selling standard cap mags to us serfs after Bill's met his reward?

There is no doubt reasonable or otherwise that Ruger is a pack of traitors willing to destroy your freedom to save their pocketbooks. Bill tried to buy his way back into our good graces with his "donation" to the NRA museum.

That may work amongst the East Coast Eloi that run the NRA. It does not buy my forgiveness to their treachery.

The youngsters should be educated as to Ruger's cowardice. They must be driven into bankruptcy as an example to the rest of the gun makers.

True enough what you said. And, no doubt Bill Ruger was a firearms genius, but so were many others who designed firearms, but did not support freedom.

[F4GIB]

Gun owners didn't drive S&W out of business although it has a history of much greater treachery. They won't do anything to Ruger. "If I want a cheap .22, I'll buy a Ruger." The commitment of the average gun owner doesn't include personal discomfort and their staying power is very weak. They shout, they pout, they forget.

[Tag]

After buying a Ruger Mark II, I'll never even consider buying anything from that company again. What a piece of junk!

Wolf, what was wrong with it? I'm about to get one of these puppies, but if I should look elsewhere I will...

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

If you want a new DA revolver, and decide not to patronize companies that have screwed up on RKBA issues, you're going to find a very limited selection.

Smith & Wesson: Boycott over "the HUD agreement"

Ruger: Boycott over Bill Rugers helping to write the 10 round magazine limit

Taurus: The company is Brazilian, no RKBA there, and a participant in New Jersey's "smart gun" travesty.

Colt: Limits civilian market sales.

That pretty much leaves Dan Wesson, EAA, Charter 2000, and NAA.

[Kamicosmos]

The Mark II is a fine gun. I too would be interested in Standing Wolf's problem with it. Any time a Ruger thread comes up, he just says because of the Mark II he won't buy any more Rugers. Considering how many Mark I and IIs have been sold over the past 50ish years, I am having trouble determining what was so terribly wrong with his... :confused: (Nothing personal towards you SW, I enjoy your posts and knowledge you share with us here, just curious about your Mark II problem.)

As far as the 'Bill Ruger Betrayal': S&W and Colt have been much worse to us 'civilians' than Ruger. Ruger did get elitist as he grew older, and pretty much became a Only Cops and the Military need my guns type of guy. But, to butcher HKs slogan 'We live in a world of compromise'. What would you all say if Bill (And the NRA, remember) hadn't supported the 10 round limit, and all semi auto handguns were flat out banned in '94?

Oh yeah...vote from the rooftops, shoot down the Blue Helmet piloted blackhawks with our Barretts...yadda yadda.... :rolleyes:

[FPrice]

Bill Ruger and his company are the lowest form of life--traitors who sought to save themselves by destroying our freedom. Traitors.

I'd have to say that this description is a bit over the top, especially when when you consider that Bill Ruger almost single-handedly built a company that exists only by providing us products that support our 2A freedoms. After all Sturm Ruger is first and foremost a Firearms Company and probably depend less upon military and police sales than most of the other big companies and therefore more on civilian sales.

Granted he made one very misguided decision. But to say that this is "destroying" our freedom just does not follow logically. Emotionally, yes, but logically no.

[Marshall]

Ruger makes some nice firearms, I'm not going to cut my nose of to spite my face. I've bought rugers since then and will continue to consider a Ruger when gun shopping.

[Cosmoline]

Different times, different politics. Bill has passed away and the time to launch a boycott came and went a decade ago.

[Boats]

Certain people would rather beat a dead man. . .er, horse, than simply accomodate themselves to the market reality. Ruger, for better or worse, is a publically owned company and so governmental intervention in their market is a very real threat to the bottom line. So Ruger doesn't make 20 or 30 round Mini 14 mags as a sop to their social critics? Well, if there is an aftermarket worth spit, that won't long be a problem except for some lost accessory sales for Ruger.

Hmm. Let me check my personal boycott list concerning RKBA and politics:

Anschütz: Axis of Weasels products.
Auto-Ordnance Corp: Garbage
Bushmaster: Settled with a Brady lawsuit.
Browning/FNH: Axis of Weasels products.
Colt: Limits civilian sales and dabbles in smart gun issues.
EAA: Sucky service.
Glock: Axis of Weasels. Mucks around with ballistic fingerprinting.
Heckler & Koch: Axis of Weasels products. Internal locks.
Kel-Tec: Garbage.
Kimber: MIM and Schwartz.
Marlin: Safety interlock on lever.
Mauser: Axis of Weasels.
Para Ordnance: Garbage from a fine country with a big Weasel problem.
Remington: Engineering issues.
Rossi: Garbage from an anti country.
Ruger: Everbody else has laid out the case above.
Sigarms: Axis of Weasels with a North American operation.
Smith & Wesson: Closet Clintonistas with nipple locks.
Springfield Armory: Importer of products from an anti-RKBA country.
Steyr Mannlicher: AoW
Taurus: See Rossi, add smart gunning and internal locks to the problem.
Winchester: See Marlin.
Walther: AoW in bed with Clintonista S&W.

It doesn't leave a very exciting remaining line-up, especially in large bore handguns.

Armalite
Beretta
Ceska Zbrojovka
Charter 2000, Inc.
Dan Wesson Firearms Co.
DPMS
DS Arms, Inc.
Freedom Arms Inc.
Henry Repeating Arms Company
Hi-Point Firearms
High Standard Manufacturing Co. Inc.
IAR, Inc.
Israel Arms International
Ithaca Gun Company
Kahr Arms
Magnum Research Inc.
Navy Arms Company
North American Arms, Inc.
Olympic Arms
Sako Ltd
Savage Arms, Inc.
Thompson Center Arms
Traditions, Inc.
Uberti
U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.
Weatherby


Good thing I ignore my own list.:D

[Mastrogiacomo]

Not buying a gun because you're upset with the company's policy would leave you pretty empty of choices. Beretta's customer service could be better, but I still own them, S&W and Ruger offend many gun owners here but I've had nothing but good luck with the gun so I'll keep buying. If it really ticks you off, let the company know but other than that, not much you can do.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Like Giuliani's analogy of cars and guns, it's talking to symptoms rather than the problem.
All business's do what they must to remain in business and create wealth, contributing to the economy.

Those politicians in Washington created the environment for gun control. A band-aid fix here and a band-aid fix there, all addressing a symptom rather than a problem. Squeakers get the grease and money talks, BS walks and the potlickers got re-elected.

If a company wants to stay in business and be or remain competitive they must be in step with current industry technology. Research and development is a must for invention and product innovation. This is true for any business.

The gun industry is playing by the rules our government sets. They are doing what they can to stay in business and still create a product worthy of our dollars attention.

Harley Davidson designed a new engine and patented many items the aftermarket cannot manufacture, and the aftermarket for HD products is huge. Sole source is with the mother company.

Not so with firearm industry. If you have a better magazine, grip, barrel or business plan get out in your garage and build it, we will buy it. Your primary problems will be the politicians. The secondary problems will be the bureacracy at all levels of government making administrative law. Either way you have to continue to keep the revenues at a respectible level or the investors are gone. And so is your company.

To blame and boycott Ruger, S&W, Remington, Marlin etc. is misplacing the blame. The problem is right there in your city hall and up.
The conservatives have won the Presidency, additional seats in both the Senate and House, yet the NRA-ILA says the climate isn't right for going after big change. They are wrong. Looks to me like the sun is coming up and its a great day for a battle.

This "Climate" is our opportunity to attack. Our numbers are fresh, the other side is gasping and screaming from the wounds of Nov 2's miscalculations.
Don't backup now, don't rest, move forward.

Its the politicians.

Vick

[Gewehr98]

From a current thread in the Rifle Country forum, I can't let this one escape.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=147711&page=3

There's one statement, repeatedly in that thread, that's supposed to make a difference:

Cite your facts. Bill Ruger was the largest single contributor to the NRA, among other gun and hunting groups, and I'm getting real tired of folks repeating BS.

Yup... Bill Ruger was the largest single contributor to the National Rifle Association.

Ok, Bill Ruger Sr. gave money to the NRA, and lots of it. Yippee. And that means that the NRA loved him so much they automatically condoned his sellout letter urging magazine capacity limits to protect his beloved Mini-14? Or did his huge contributions give him carte blanche to assault the 2nd Amendment and sensibilities of the gun-buying public without fear of retribution? (Well, he pretty much avoided the retribution part, by checking out of town on 6 July 2002)


Yup, you betcha. That's like me saying because I'm the largest single contributor to the Gewehr98 Halfway House for Unwed Syphalitic Teenage Mothers, you should just look the other way while I dip into the nookie jar. :rolleyes:


I like certain Ruger firearms, and own a few. Others to me aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell, they're either clunky, ugly, or can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside. It's a darned shame he became a sellout circa 1994, and it's a darned shame that I quit buying any new Rugers after that date. But I'll be damned if I support a company that still abides by the policies of it's late chairman. They have a chance to make things right now, Bill Sr. won't care. Really. Business would only get better, because gun owners would actually think you're on their side. Imagine that!

And I really, really wonder how much a certain vociferous defender of Ruger's policy in that thread gets paid by the company to be their poster child. It must be a tidy sum, disavowing knowledge of the Ruger magazine ban letter and all... :scrutiny:

[beerslurpy]

Uh just FYI, belgium != france.

[c_yeager]

Not only are they still in business, they have been one of the most consistently profitable American gun companies in history. How many times has Ruger changed hands? How about the other large American gun manufactures? Like it or not, Ruger is making sound business decisions.

[JohnBT]

"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

[GunGoBoom]

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.

[afasano]

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

[Andrew Rothman]

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:

[Cosmoline]

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.

[Zrex]

I sold my only Ruger (a MK II) back in early 1995, and will not buy another one.

[Peet]

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

[GunGoBoom]

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. ;)

[Jet22]

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.

[Zundfolge]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[WheelMan]

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.

[Gewehr98]

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. ;)

[Jet22]

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.

[Gewehr98]

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.

[LAR-15]

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.

[Gewehr98]

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?

[Smurfslayer]

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.

[Jet22]

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:

[LAR-15]

That article points out Ruger did in fact propose and support a 15 round magazine limit.

[Jet22]

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


That article also points out why the XGI was not introduced in April of 1989.

[Gewehr98]

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:

[LAR-15]

No and neither do the police actually.

[Jet22]

Our state police don't use 15 round mags in their rifles. They have MP51's and need a lot more than 15 rounds!

[Cosmoline]

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.

[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. :rolleyes:

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. :uhoh:

[fallingblock]

"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. :D

[Gewehr98]

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

[Ultima-Ratio]

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! :neener:
Laters Kiddies

[fallingblock]

"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. :D

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. :neener:

[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.