If Ruger Had Brains They Would Compete With SW and Taurus in the J frame Size


PDA






GEM
May 10, 2007, 12:34 PM
That's it. There was a thread about popular CCW revolvers. One must admit that the forte of the modern revolver for carry is the pocket gun. Certainly something like a Model 66 is a fine gun but if you go to the belt - there are many better and reliable semis.

For hunting - sure a revolver is great.

So with SW and Taurus making a buck with J frame sized guns and Charter back in the business and old man Ruger at the great range in the sky - why doesn't Ruger come up with a J frame size gun?

Come out with the long desired reasonable 9mm snubby or something fun. They are just stuck in the past.

If you enjoyed reading about "If Ruger Had Brains They Would Compete With SW and Taurus in the J frame Size" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
May 10, 2007, 12:38 PM
Or upgrade the SP101 to 40S&W?

Joe Demko
May 10, 2007, 12:39 PM
"No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham."
Bill Ruger

1 LT MPC
May 10, 2007, 12:44 PM
I'd rather see them duplicate Colt's D frame. I like the extra shot. Why Colt doesn't do it is beyond me.:confused:

ARperson
May 10, 2007, 12:54 PM
As far as Ruger goes, I think they are sticking to the their largest revolver market. Cowboy Action Shooting revolvers. Why compete in a market with others who have already established market dominance when your main source of income is something else.

The have the SP101, it is smaller, built like a tank, but weights alot too. My guess is that they are staying more true to their largest customer base, where people buy at least two guns, then use the heck out them so the need more/parts.

In the carry market, someone will buy one, and then only use is sparingly for range practice most of their life. Why compete with Smith, Taurus, and Charter who are already competing against the smaller autos of Glock, Springfield, Kahr, Kimber, etc.....

Ruger probablys makes more money on Mark IIIs 10-22s and Vaqueros each than all of their other produts combined.

Just ARperson's hubby's opinion.

GEM
May 10, 2007, 01:04 PM
I think I read their sales were down. Might be wrong about that. But Ford emphasized trucks and oops. That's what I was thinking.

Candiru
May 10, 2007, 01:17 PM
My guess is that either their castings don't hold up as well as S&W's forged frames below a certain size, or building smaller and more lightweight guns that break more than once every other lifetime doesn't fit with the profit margins of their service model.

SAWBONES
May 10, 2007, 04:44 PM
The snubby (2 1/4" barrel) SP101 is only 25 oz, similar to some of the Colt D-frames. While not a pocket gun, it's still easily portable and concealable, plus it handles full power .357 loads with relative ease, and with much more comfort than even the all-steel J-frames. It actually fits my hand better than any of the J-frames, too, so for me its good traits outweigh the ways in which it fails to imitate the J-frames.

buzz_knox
May 10, 2007, 04:47 PM
My guess is that either their castings don't hold up as well as S&W's forged frames below a certain size, or building smaller and more lightweight guns that break more than once every other lifetime doesn't fit with the profit margins of their service model.

Another alternative is that consistent with Bill Ruger's statement (quoted above) and the statement of one of the top management (made at the 2004 Shot Show if memory serves), Ruger has no real interest in entering the CCW market any more than they have.

DawgFvr
May 10, 2007, 05:20 PM
Joe Demko:

"No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham."
Bill Ruger

Now that's funny!:p

JohnBT
May 10, 2007, 05:27 PM
It is funny and I laugh everytime I hear it, but I don't believe Bill Ruger said it.

Meanwhile, if Ruger won't build a pocket revolver maybe you can talk Remington or Marlin or Savage into it. They haven't been interested in that market either.

John

Whirlwind06
May 10, 2007, 05:28 PM
Well there is hope.
On the auto side they have came out with the P345.
About the size of a 1911 commander.
I know that is not small but it is slimmer then the other Ruger pistols.

buzz_knox
May 10, 2007, 05:32 PM
JohnBT, you might be right about the quote. I had it confused with this one from Ruger.

"No honest man needs more than ten rounds..."

Joe Demko
May 10, 2007, 06:26 PM
It is funny and I laugh everytime I hear it, but I don't believe Bill Ruger said it.

No, he didn't. The quote originated with me at TFL. Tamara found it amusing and repeated it. Her huge popularity caused it to spread until it took on a life of its own. I'd love to claim full credit for putting those words in Bill Ruger's mouth as payback for what he did say, but w/o Tamara a few people would have laffed and it would have been forgotten.

Zundfolge
May 10, 2007, 06:27 PM
Ruger has always designed and built firearms as though they are the only gun manufacturer in the world ... the concept of competing with other manufacturers seems foreign to them (and to be fair, there's times its worked for them).

Fburgtx
May 10, 2007, 06:31 PM
I think Ruger might do well to enter this market. I think people would flock to an S&W alternative (that didn't have the "Lock", Sorry, someone had to start this again!!!) that's made in the USA. I also think they need to consider a 1911 variant.

The one other glaring flaw in their lineup has to do with shotguns. I think they would do well with a moderately priced semi-auto (think $500-$650 range). A pump would be nice, but Remington and Mossberg already have that market saturated.

461
May 10, 2007, 06:33 PM
Maybe the other manufacturers should try competing with Ruger on guns that will take heavy loads and hard use and last a lifetime doing it.

GTSteve03
May 10, 2007, 06:39 PM
Maybe the other manufacturers should try competing with Ruger on guns that will take heavy loads and hard use and last a lifetime doing it.
+1

This is Ruger's forte, building heavy-duty pistols that can handle just about anything a handloader can put them through, and come out grinning. :cool:

Ruger would be smart to stick with what they do best. Why get into a market that S&W and Taurus have pretty much covered?

texas bulldog
May 10, 2007, 07:17 PM
The snubby (2 1/4" barrel) SP101 is only 25 oz, similar to some of the Colt D-frames. While not a pocket gun, it's still easily portable and concealable, plus it handles full power .357 loads with relative ease, and with much more comfort than even the all-steel J-frames. It actually fits my hand better than any of the J-frames, too, so for me its good traits outweigh the ways in which it fails to imitate the J-frames.

+1 on this.

i actually like the SP101 for carry. i don't want my gun to weigh half an ounce, and i like having an exposed hammer [though ruger provides a DAO]. and it's plenty portable enough for IWB, OWB, or even some pockets. and i want to be able to put hot, heavy .357 through my carry gun on a regular basis. even if i was gonna go S&W for carry [which i well might], i'd go with a 60 rather than all the snazzy featherweight shrouded, bobbed, hidden hammer stuff that dominates the market these days.

just an opinion...YMMV

nemoaz
May 10, 2007, 07:48 PM
No honest man needs a Ruger.
Nemo

Old Fuff
May 10, 2007, 09:12 PM
Bill Ruger Sr. was well aware of his competition... and he beat most of them into the ground. He started with a small operation making a .22 pistol, in a factory located in a former commercial garage. Then within his lifetime he built it into a major operation, and didn’t use one cent of borrowed money too do it.

His game plan was simple. Build guns that looked like favored styles, but improve them, and make the better. After doing so, sell them for slightly less then the (then) big names were asking. As for the strength of his revolvers, they are more then equal to anything else on the market. Most reloading handbooks have “Ruger only” loads. There is no such thing as “S&W only” loads, or “Colt’s only” loads.

He wasn’t particularly interested in the CCW pocket gun market, but said if he changed his mind it would be an autoloader, not a revolver. In a conversation I had with him on this subject he pointed out that in his opinion the thickness of the revolver’s cylinder worked against pocket carry. A pistol was thinner, could be made lighter, and would turn a better profit – even with a lower retail price.

Because of their reliability I still prefer a revolver for this mission, but I’ll also admit that his arguments were right. He will be remembered as one of the outstanding gun designers of the 20th century.

Serpico
May 10, 2007, 09:24 PM
I think it's smart business not to compete with the yardstick of pocket guns...taurus and charter probably don't sell a 1/10th of the snubs of Smith, combined...maybe Ruger saw there was a market for a more shootable small revolver and decided to build it like a Ruger...a bit heavy but will take a pounding...I own a 442 for carry and when I looked for a more shootable snub, I first decided on the Ruger.

Boats
May 10, 2007, 09:31 PM
The continued flogging of a dead man over his minor role in bringing about a dead law is something bordering on pathological.:rolleyes:

I have an S&W M38 and a 638. I've been thinking I'd rather have an SP-101 so I could actually enjoy practice.

JohnBT
May 10, 2007, 09:52 PM
"and he beat most of them into the ground."

Not only that, he did it without borrowing any money. Amazing cash flow management.


No honest man needs more than ten canned hams.

John

Maddock
May 10, 2007, 11:05 PM
Ruger could probably put out lightweight revolvers with titanium frames without developing too much new technology. They are a leader in titanium investment casting for a number of industries. I, for one, would be interested in a SP101 with a titanium frame. But I agree with many of the above posters – it doesn’t seem to fit with their business model.

eliphalet
May 10, 2007, 11:29 PM
Ruger's OK in my book, I own more Rugers than any other brand. I am glad they are what they are, they make strong guns, the strongest single actions ever made that is reasonably priced so that a regular guy can buy em. I had a Colt Detective Special a number of years but sold that 38 and now have a SP101 357. Personally let other makes do what they are already doing and hopefully Ruger will continue to do what they have always done. About all I would add was a LH short action bolt. But then Bolts and Sa's are my thing I could care less about most auto centerfires. They do make about the ugliest lever ever made LOL

They seem to be doing alright for a company that came from nothing to what they are in about 50 years. My hats off to Bill and Company even with the lock and his mis-spoken words a few years back. Any one that has not said something they later regretted must be a Deity. To much is made from mistakes said in todays world IMO look at Zumbo as a prime example. He was crucified far too fast, again IMHO.

Cato the Younger
May 10, 2007, 11:41 PM
Yes, Bill Ruger made a mistake, in my mind, by endorsing the brady bill. However, his business acumen is great. I look at the line up of Ruger products, and looking at my own collection, I have 2 of his co's products- a redhawk and a 10/22. I think Ruger revolvers are great- that heavy steel is amazing to have for both recoil control and strength. I wear cargo type pants, so perhaps an SP101 is in my future as a CCW piece. Anyway, I understand some like smiths, but, for me, nothing compares to the solid feel of a Ruger.

Jomax
May 11, 2007, 12:05 AM
IMO, I can shoot .357 full loads in my SP101 2" all day long, not have a strained wrist or forearm and be pretty darn accurate. Can't do any of that with .38's or +P's in my S&W 642Airweight. Towards the end of the box of 50 .38 Spl, the sting is apparent and it gets progressively worse. Accuracy at 25' becomes more difficult for me.

The Ruger's heft and solid feel definitely has its place as does the Airweight's lack of heft and enviable ease of carry. Two very different revolvers with very different purposes IMO. My Ruger has several thousand rounds through it and never skips a beat. My Airweight was simply not designed for that type of range volume.

SnWnMe
May 11, 2007, 01:21 AM
They did not build strong single actions. They simply built bigger ones. Note that when they reduced the Vaquero revolvers to the same size as their competitors, the Ruger only loads no longer applied.

if Uberti and Taurus built bigger SAs they would be just as strong as the Rugers.

bigmike45
May 11, 2007, 11:16 AM
Say what you want about Ruger revolvers. I have been trying to wreck my 2" DAO SP-101 for thousands of rounds, by shooting everything out there including the Federal 180gr JHP's. I have had a sore wrist from those shooting sessions many times, but it has not affected the fit of the Ruger one little bit. I never worry about forcing cone cracking or cylinder fracture. Carry those light frames all you want. I want the feel and heft and accuracy of the Ruger when I have to defend my or someone elses life. As far as the SP-101 not being designed for pocket carry. I can easily hide my 2" DAO in the pocker of any pants/shorts I have on. It is a little heavier than those Scanidium, Titanium and other revolver metals, but not to a point where it is uncomfortable to carry.

Mike

GEM
May 11, 2007, 12:35 PM
I read once that they tried a titanium frame and it didn't work for them.

Also, pocket carry of a SP101 is not that easy or comfortable for most.

My basic point is that they missed a market slice they easily could have met. It is the same as Glock letting Kahr take the smaller 9mm market. Ruger could have had that also.

It's a market decision. If I ran a company that had the ability I would go for it. I don't dislike them - I have two Rugers - but it was silly on their part not to move with the market.

buzz_knox
May 11, 2007, 12:37 PM
Bill Ruger made a mistake, in my mind, by endorsing the brady bill.

It was the AWB. And I agree about his business acumen. In exchange for his endorsement and support, the Mini-14 and Mini-30 were specifically namedd as being excluded from the definition of assault weapon.

MassMark
May 11, 2007, 12:52 PM
IMO, I can shoot .357 full loads in my SP101 2" all day long, not have a strained wrist or forearm and be pretty darn accurate. Can't do any of that with .38's or +P's in my S&W 642Airweight. Towards the end of the box of 50 .38 Spl, the sting is apparent and it gets progressively worse. Accuracy at 25' becomes more difficult for me.

I get what you're saying. 100-rounds of Speer +P 135's and I'm done for the day. I think the point of the 642CT however is not an "all day shooter" - certainly not a range gun. It's a CCW/Self Defense weapon. One can adequately put enough rounds downtown to become proficient and maintain it, without becoming uncomfortable and plinking with non-hothouse fodder is pleasant. I have 700-rounds out of mine in a little over a month and have easily identified what rounds I can shoot in mass, (ie: Winchester 125 JHP) and rounds I cant, (Speer 135's). The 642 is designed for concealability and light weight - a purpose built CCW. One has to realize that in a real world engagement, even using all 5-shots in the cylinder is a bit unrealistic. If one is planning on a SHTF shoot-out weapon - this is not it, but for it's intended purpose, (self defense), it fits the bill perfectly.

I won't get into a Ruger vs. Smith debate, as in my view there is none. Both venerable companies have been producing their wares and maintaining their design/business concepts for a long long time. I think both companies have had their share of controversy and at one time or another, I swore I'd never buy a gun from either....

I wish Ruger would throw their hat into the true CCW ring, (not just chop down a revolver to appease) - would be interesting to see what they could come up with...

rc135
May 12, 2007, 01:20 AM
I read just t'other day that Ruger's sales were up as bit in 2006, actually, something like 5% or so. Not as much as S&W, but good, nevertheless.

What was even more interesting, in said article, was this factoid: The #1 seller of revos in the US last year was S&W; #2 was Ruger and #3 was Heritage Manufacturing (www.HeritageMfg.com)! I was just thinking of buying one of their 22LR/22Mag single actions.

gezzer
May 12, 2007, 01:53 AM
Note: Bill is dead, His son has resigned. They will be following current trends as the company is not stupid.

SnWnMe
May 12, 2007, 02:30 AM
Yeah they make nice golf clubs.

Brass Fetcher
May 12, 2007, 02:38 AM
It would be interesting to find out how much it costs, on average, for a large gun company to bring a new gun to market. Does anyone have figures like this or any idea?

This would help us decide if it was feasible for company X to make a new gun Y , etc...

Jomax
May 12, 2007, 11:08 AM
I worked for a large manufacturer (not guns) for well over a decade and although tooling was a very big investment, the research, engineering, machining, testing and beta-testing were pricey as well. Early problems, defects, warranty returns were others. Length of time for payback was a prime consideration. Guns probably don't have a huge profit margin so it's conceivable that actual payback may well exceed the customary 2 to 3 year payback (ROI) timeframe making a completely new venture an ill-advised and unprofitable effort.

Old Fuff
May 12, 2007, 11:37 AM
Jomax is right. This is the reason most "new" models are an "old" one that has some cosmetic changes, and Ruger isn't an exception to this rule. They also aren't going to enter every segment of the firearms industry just because some wish they would. At the moment they are also not making:

A 1911 pistol clone

A pump-action shotgun

A semi-automatic shotgun

And the list could go on and on ....

Fun2Shoot
May 12, 2007, 12:21 PM
Ruger's seeming lack of marketplace awareness is common in large established companies.

It is a failure of what's called "corporate culture".

That is, a certian mind-set is established in the top of the organization and everyone else better tow the company line or face becoming an outcast.

Look at all the famous companies from the past that were once powerhouses and are now just shadows of their former selves. Sears, K-Mart, General Motors, Colt and so on.

Colt is a fine example of a failed corporate culture. Can any gun lover not say that it is a cryin' shame that Colt is such non-player in the civilian gun market. I'd love to own a nib Colt Detective, but that just ain't guna happen.

Ruger is missing out in so many ways, not to mention Ruger's decline in quality over the last several years.

But not to worry. Market forces will fill in for these fading players. Look at CZ and Taurus. Their corporate culture is open to mining the latest market place demands, not sitting back and resting on the past and looking at scrap books while the company goes to the scrap pile

hrgrisso
May 12, 2007, 12:45 PM
+1 461

and

Fburgtx, the shotgun you describe can be had for 400 bucks from Stoeger. It's their 2000 model which runs on Benelli's inertia system. Just FYI.

IIRC Bill Ruger was not a small man. I'm sorry but I have a hard time thinking in the pocket pistol mindset. I imagine a large man, who already has great success, probably would have a harder time thinking in pocket pistols...

JohnBT
May 12, 2007, 10:21 PM
"Ruger's seeming lack of marketplace awareness"

What lack?

"From 1949 through 2004, Ruger has built over 20 million firearms..."

Most companies would love to be as successful and profitable as Ruger has been year after year.

Then there's the extensive casting business, etc.

Fun2Shoot
May 13, 2007, 09:03 PM
Fun2Shoot said "Ruger's seeming lack of marketplace awareness.........."

Another member asked What lack?

Let me answer your question about my quote that you noted if I may.

I have owned more Ruger handguns that any other brand to date, so I am no Ruger basher. You say ""From 1949 through 2004, Ruger has built over 20 million firearms...". My statements are about today's Ruger handgun product output and not about the past volume of guns made. The past is over and it is not a good indicator of future success or sales volume.

Let me turn the question around and say: Colt firearms has produced X amount of handguns between such and such dates. Do you think that today's Colt company had good market awareness in the 1980's and 1990's ? I certainly don't. Kimber and Springfield Armory now rule the 1911 market segment that Colt created and once owned.

Ruger may have been able to sell many millions more handguns if they would produce a good concealed carry revolver and/or semi-auto, IMO.

I wonder how many 10's of thousands of 1911 style 45acp's that the Ruger Co. could have sold if they marketed them about the same time that Kimber and Springfield Armory began to really ramp up production on them?

So my answer to "what lack?' is just this. Ruger totally missed the CCW & 1911 market that has made other firearm makers millions of dollars in profit.

Marketplace awareness is why Toyota is now the #1 auto maker in the world and the once dominant General Motors Co. stock is today classified as "junk" by Wall Street.

JohnBT
May 13, 2007, 10:45 PM
Oh, you mean Ruger should have caught the 1911 wave that made Colt such a flourishing concern? Maybe they didn't want to make cast 1911s or tool up to make forged ones. If they had, maybe they'd have a tarnished reputation today like Kimber. Read the Kimber forums, they don't have the same rep they had in 1999 when I bought my Stainless Gold Match.

You say history is bunk and then you use history to try and make your point.

"My statements are about today's Ruger handgun product output and not about the past volume of guns made."

And I say they've made one good call after another (with only a minor misstep here and there) over the decades and I'm betting they know what they're doing now. I understand that you don't think they know what they're doing and if you owned the company it would be even more successful than it already is. Maybe so. Maybe not.

"Marketplace awareness is why Toyota is now the #1 auto maker in the world"

Only if reasonably good engineering and great quality control - reliability - count as market awareness. Otherwise their cars are sort of blah and spiritless. I've driven them off and on since '86 and I'm driving an '06 Avalon now and it's okay, even for a Toyota. I'm not sure the $39,600 sticker price was justified. And why don't the rear seats fold down? Duh, what were they thinking. OTOH, I might keep it just for the 12-speaker, 360-watt JBL stereo. And the 268 h.p. engine and 5-speed auto. I don't mind driving fast and getting 30 mpg on regular.

John

buzz_knox
May 13, 2007, 10:49 PM
Note: Bill is dead, His son has resigned. They will be following current trends as the company is not stupid.

When? The Rugers have been gone for a while, and Ruger is proceeding firmly down the same path it has for years.

lee n. field
May 13, 2007, 11:05 PM
Or upgrade the SP101 to 40S&W?

We think alike.

Croyance
May 13, 2007, 11:11 PM
GEM:
One must admit that the forte of the modern revolver for carry is the pocket gun.

Actually I believe the forte is in large, really powerful rounds.
For concealed carry, modern semi-autos are flatter with about the same power and capacity. Smaller all around.
The real trade-offs are arguable, but at best it is a wash. I say this as an owner of J-Frames.

Ruger seems to favor cast frames and while the frames are strong, I can't help but notice they are uniformly half-a-size larger than their competitors. The SP-101 isn't much smaller than a snubbie K-frame. It may be stronger than a J-frame (very much so), but is noticably larger.

Competing in a crowded market means having to have a very good product plus a lot of marketing if you are to make a dent right away.
I don't think they are stuck in the past, I think they understand what they do well and what sells for them. Sticking with your strengths is one way to avoid losing money. Putting good money after good isn'it bad odds.

jeff-10
May 14, 2007, 12:26 AM
It seems to me Ruger has the most diverse product line out of all US firearm manufacturers. They also have a well earned reputation for quality.

sm
May 14, 2007, 01:15 AM
Forget a specific company for a moment.

Line extensions have hurt business sense and affected QC within a company, and for sure other companies jumping on the bandwagon for the hot ticket items.

joneb
May 14, 2007, 03:09 AM
I'm a carpenter and I have many power tools, I buy the best tools I can. I own many different brands of tools, Milwaukee makes a good this and Bosch a good that, Hitachi, Makita, ect... But no one makes the best of everthing so I have many different brands of firearms as well.
Just beware of those yellow tools :D

eliphalet
May 14, 2007, 10:29 AM
"Marketplace awareness is why Toyota is now the #1 auto maker in the world"
Too bad Toyota doesn't get into the firearm market. I can envision high polished blue with great walnut or other good fit feel wood, or the strongest,sturdiest best feeling and looking synthetics with with the best stainless. Silky slick actions that would barely shoot MOA groups when you got a bad one...That his been my experience with the Toyota Motor Company, from my 1965 FJ40 to my 4X4 P/u and the wifes Camry. "Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door". Toyota has done just that, now if they would just make guns.

Did I say I was a Toyota fan?

Jomax
May 14, 2007, 11:28 AM
Toyota paid close attention to what people wanted in and expected from their vehicles all the while they were working their way up to being number 1. Unlike GM, Ford and Chrysler who have continually seen themselves as knowing more about customers want than the customers do. I tell folks to sit inside a Toyota and see how much attention they paid to the little details that others ignore.

As that relates to guns, some gun manufacturers are probably looking at the twilight of their existence and couldn't make the big investments even if they wanted to. So, they continue churn out what they've been making for decades until no one wants them any more. American-based manufacturing operations are getting smaller in size or going away altogether as a rule of thumb, not getting bigger. Labor, benefits and geneal overhead costs in the U.S.A. are becoming prohibitive for many.

IMO:

Like in "The Graduate", "plastics" - polymer is the present and the future of handguns because molds are cheaper to tool for and so the ROI can come sooner. Molding and assembly processes are right up the alley of Third World countries where labor is cheap. I think that revolvers as we know them will continue along with only modest changes and improvements until the supplies are exhausted 100 years from now.

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 11:54 AM
All I know is that if Ruger made a scandium framed, 3 inch SP101 with adjustable sights, Id buy it and so would a lot of savy guys.

From that platform, Ruger could then make the same scandium SP101 with fixed sights in a 2 inch revolver and it would be lighter than a D frame Colt and about the same size--Id have to have one of those too.

Owen
May 14, 2007, 12:19 PM
If Toyota made guns, they would have one entry in each niche, and would offer no options on each of those guns. IE, the duty revolver would be a .357 Mag, with no other offerings. The hunting rifle would be a mid-length action bolt gun in .308 Win, with no other options.

Polymer costs more to tool than machining does. The saving are in piece price. These days polymers are used because they are superior to steel or sluminum for the pistol frame application.

Rexster
May 14, 2007, 03:43 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but my wee little S&W M430, a 642 PC variant, sits in the safe most of the time, and my SP101 snubbies are everyday carry guns; this includes while wearing shorts in summer. The J-smith has probably not been carried in 3 years or so, and one J is enough. I sold off my Ti-lite J-frame. There are 3 SP101 snubbies among my working handgun battery. The SP101's size makes it behave more like a service-sized fighting handgun that a pocket pistol, the factory grip is a perfect fit in my hands, the heft makes it steadier for fast shooting, and the lugged barrel is good for the times a bad guy might might bump his head on your barrel.

Croyance
May 14, 2007, 11:12 PM
polymer is the present and the future of handguns because molds are cheaper to tool for and so the ROI can come sooner. Molding and assembly processes are right up the alley of Third World countries where labor is cheap.
Actually molds can be pretty expensive. The per unit cost after that is very low. Mass production makes the initial investment worthwhile.
You don't need much trained labor for it either. It isn't that third world labor is cheap - it is that they don't have large numbers of skilled tradesmen - which injection molding does not require.
But molds can be shipped and anybody can stick it on a rack.

big44
May 15, 2007, 12:39 AM
I don't want to rehash the S&W vs Ruger debate because it's been done to death. I've had a SP101 before. It's a descent gun. Very well built and very capable. But other than my Glock 20, I carry my J Frame S&W Model 60 Stainless Steel 357 Magnum mostly now. I had to get rid of my SP101 some time ago and just haven't gotten another one yet. But even if I bought one tomorrow I'd still carry my J.

If you enjoyed reading about "If Ruger Had Brains They Would Compete With SW and Taurus in the J frame Size" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!