[Mark Tyson]

I was appalled to learn that the late Bill Ruger was responsible for the 10 round magazine limitation provision of the 94 crime bill. What I want to know is: how could he?

The magazine limit was the most atrocious provision of one of the most atrocious gun laws ever. I would say it was the only provision that had any real effect.

I swear that I will not buy another Ruger. But where will I go for a decent wheelgun? Smith & Wesson sold out to the Clintons, Colt if I recall correctly doesn't serve the civilian market anymore. Who else makes decent revolvers? Taurus?

Anyone with more information on this, please fill me in or provide me with a link. I want to read more.

Ugh. And I was having such a nice day.

[hksw]

Freedom Arms

[Byron Quick]

It is my understanding that Bill Ruger was not the instigator of the 10 rd magazine ban. He did support it from my understanding of events. He was quoted as saying something on the order of "no honest man (or law abiding) has a reason to own high capacity magazines."


There are plenty of pre-agreement S&W's out there in good conditon at reasonable prices.

[Boats]

The way I heard it, BR was originally for a 15 round limit, with one eye on the Glock 17. The problem with proposing compromise at fifteen is that someone always wants it lower.

The much maligned NRA got the 10 year sunset provision stuck in there that would, ultimately it appears, kill the bill unless Congress positively voted to renew it. Chuck the Schmuck, Dianne Fineswine, and company, I am certain, all smugly thought they'd still be in charge in 2004.

Too bad.:evil:

I kind of nuance my thoughts on Ruger. I'll still buy wheelguns from his company, but never a semi-auto.

[Ian]

Freedom Arms has good revolvers, as does Dan Wesson (no affiliation with S&W).

[jsalcedo]

I was always told Ruger didn't offer highcaps for the mini 14 to the civilian market because Bill Ruger did not believe civilians should own them.

I picked up a 1979 guns and ammo and big as life was a Ruger Ad for Mini 14 with an offering of 5 10 and 20 round mags.


What gives? Did they advertise and not ever sell any?

[JohnBT]

Does anybody really believe that William Ruger introduced the bill and voted on it?

Then how was he responsible for it?

Maybe he supported it. Maybe he was involved in it. But I don't see how he was responsible for it.

John

[jsalcedo]

He was on national TV promoting it and he testified before congress.

[Jeeper]

I could be wrong here but:

I always thought that Bill Ruger was a worse sellout than Smith and Wesson ever was. I cant really remember what I was reading about it but I though he basically supported the whole AW ban. Some of the more aware people will likely chime in here.

[Boats]

Ruger worse than S&W?

Bill's sins will die next September's while S&W's merely lay dormant. Unless of course one counts the ongoing presence of nipple locks on the S&W current line-up as ongoing adherence to the the Deal That Doesn't Exist Anymore, No Really It's Gone, Seriously, The Gun Rags All Said So!

[Parker Dean]

I second the Dan Wessons

edit: figure I should give the web site. There's another site with a similar name that has NOTHING to do with firearms

www.danwessonfirearms.com

[Selfdfenz]

Boats,
LOL.
X ring fella.
Take care,
S-

[F4GIB]

I've seen a copy Bill Ruger's letter to Congress. He suggested a magazine ban that didn't affect his company but severely impacted his foreign competition (esp. Glock).

It was nothing but an underhanded way of lining his pockets. Smith & Wesson did the same thing in 1968 when they supported to GCA in order to get surplus and foreign firearms restricted.

The gun industry has long supported gun control whenever they saw a short-term profit opportunity. Remember the S&W-Clinton deal? That's why I don't buy new Ruger or S&W products. Never will either - no matter who the "new" owners are.

[Solinvictus70]

Bill Ruger seemed to have made a business decision with his support. I believe the Glock and the subsequent influx of competitors scared him. Still, no excuse for what he did.

[bjengs]

The much maligned NRA got the 10 year sunset provision stuck in there that would, ultimately it appears, kill the bill unless Congress positively voted to renew it. Chuck the Schmuck, Dianne Fineswine, and company, I am certain, all smugly thought they'd still be in charge in 2004. And what if they were? I'm glad the NRA has some nice hunter safety programs, but they are perennial sellouts.

Anyone else here care to defend a TEN YEAR "SUNSET"?

[E357]

And while we're on the topic of corporate sell-outs you can also thank Daisy and Crossman for pushing through the orange barrel tips on imported airsoft but none on their much more dangerous pellets guns.

Elliot

[Delmar]

IIRC, Bill Ruger Sr. is DEAD. Would like to know what his kid, who is running the company, has to say.

[Sergeant Bob]

Anyone else here care to defend a TEN YEAR "SUNSET"?
So, what you're saying is you're blaming the NRA for getting the Ten Year Sunset clause put into the AWB? As opposed to them staying out of it and having no sunset and the AWB being permanent?

As you prefaced the statement with:
I'm glad the NRA has some nice hunter safety programs, but they are perennial sellouts.
That seems to your position. Am I missing something?

[Byron Quick]

In a perfect world, no gun control laws would be passed.

However, trying to get a sunset provision is a good tactic with any gun control bill that has a chance of passing.

I wish they'd gotten a ten year sunset on the 86 machinegun ban.

[Shooter 2.5]

Blaming a gun company for trying to stay in business instead of the gun grabbers is like blaming Davy Crockett for geting killed at the Alamo.

[Cosmoline]

Let's face it, the guy made some VERY stupid comments in support of the high-cap ban. But he's dead now, and since the S&W fiasco the companies are a lot more careful. These companies aren't our friends, they're trying to make money from us. But with concerted effort (as with the S&W boycott), we can make them pay dearly for screwing us over. That's capitalism. I don't think anything will be gained by boycotting Ruger now, years after the fact.

[Croyance]

Bill Ruger also stated that an honest man has no need for a concealable handgun.

[CarbineKid]

About the Mini 14.......If the law is a max of 10 rounds why does ruger only sell 5 round mags????

[gun-fucious]

http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-papabill.html
William Batterman Ruger, Senior is not a stupid man... he might be somewhat naive politically, but he's no dummy! Figuring that unless he took action, the jig was soon-to-be-up for a number of firearms, including his Mini-14 and perhaps even his extraordinarily popular Model 10/22 rimfire repeater. Unfortunately the lessons of Munich and Neville Chamberlain seemed to have been lost on the senior Ruger in the post-Stockton madness, for his creative approach was to toss the high capacity magazine "baby from the sleigh" in the desperate hope of appeasing the pursuing legislative wolves. Reasoning that the public was probably more concerned about the high volume of fire which Purdy was able to generate, than the speed at which he delivered same, Papa Bill proposed that Congress enact legislation limiting the capacity of magazines to fifteen©¯ (15!) rounds.

He had his Sturm Ruger braintrust prepare model legislation centered around this high capacity magazine prohibition with the fervent hope that "the guns [would be] saved." He even consulted with some others about this approach, including Neal Knox who attempted to dissuade him in the strongest possible terms (for Neal, anyway) from his foolhardy initiative. Papa Bill slept on Knox' council... and then on 30 March 1989 had his proposed legislation delivered to selected members of the House and the Senate. A portion of his document read:

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.

see also:
http://www.survival.com.mx/gunrack/b_ruger.html
Bill Ruger is THE PERSON who dreamed up the "10 round mag" idea. He was filmed with Tom Brokaw as Bill said "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round mags or my folding stock" and "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods".

The next day after I saw that interview, I canceled a $20,000 order for Ruger products and have not bought ONE of his guns since!

This interview was used (with Bill Rugers permission) over and over again to rub our faces in the fact that "even a gun manufacture thinks gun control is good".

Following is an excerpt from the March 30, 1989 letter Bill Ruger sent to every member of Congress:

"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 rifle' 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 effectively implement these objectives."

This letter was taken from the American Handgunner mag, dated Sept 1992 (pg. 18)

[Shooter 2.5]

Because a Ruger Mini-14 won't shoot point of aim after five rounds.

I thought everyone knew that.

[Mikul]

I consider the Ruger issue dead for two reasons: 1) Bill Ruger is dead 2) The million dollar donation to the NRA from Ruger

Sturm Ruger & Co has stated at a recent show that even if the assault weapon ban is not reinstituted, they will not manufacture magazines with more than a 10 round capacity. That's their choice, just as long as they don't try to force their choice on everyone else.

[Mark Tyson]

"Sturm Ruger & Co has stated at a recent show that even if the assault weapon ban is not reinstituted, they will not manufacture magazines with more than a 10 round capacity. That's their choice, just as long as they don't try to force their choice on everyone else."

That's more than enough reason for me never to buy another Ruger - and to let them know it. They are giving their tacit approval to this reprehensible, totalitarian policy.

[treeprof]

just as long as they don't try to force their choice on everyone else


... again.

[sw442642]

I was just talking about Ruger today with friends.

They still are like the duck hunter who looks down on your AR-15. I once contemplated a Mini-14 but explicity buy because of the lack of hi-caps. That they won't even produce legal 10 rounders indicates in the strongest terms that they see guns for "sport" and not as an instrument of the RKBA and defense against tyranny.

Ruger also has explicity kept out of the smaller guns for concealed carry market. Their smallest is the SP101 which is still quite a big heavy gun. They certainly have the capacity to compete with SW, Glock or Kahr on the small, light guns but they don't. That because they just don't really believe in the civilian non sporting market.

Ruger once produced a nice compact 22 LR semi pistol. They didn't produce it because it was too concealable.

The donation was just a payoff to try to get the gun rights nuts off their backs. It's like the Catholic church's selling of indulgences. Same moral value, IMHO.