[DWS1117]

The S&W agreement has been discussed to death. Wasn't Ruger involved with the limiting of magazine capacity? If this is so, why boycotts and animosity against S&W and not Ruger?

This is not meant to flame either company or thier products. Both have products that I like. Currently only have a SW 622 that was a gift from Dad.

[Ol' Badger]

About $200.

[DigMe]

I've heard that the claims about Ruger helping the AWB are either exaggerated or untruthful. I read an article against that theory once but I don't remember where. It could also have to do with Bill Ruger's death in recent years.

brad cook

[jthuang]

No difference to me, I'm boycotting both.

[gun-fucious]

"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."_

William B. Ruger
Sturm, Ruger Firearms

[JohnBT]

Yep, still a free country. Great isn't it?

Mr. Ruger might have put his foot in his mouth a couple of times, but he didn't sign an agreement with the Federal government to effectively restrict trade like S&W did.

And he didn't introduce that magazine bill or vote it into law either.

Whatever. I haven't forgiven him for introducing that POJunk 10/22 in 1964.

John

[Mike Irwin]

Ruger at least worked within the Constitutional framework for passing new laws in this country. S&W and the Clinton administration didn't.

Ruger's efforts resulted in a law with a sunset date. S&W's never will.

Ruger's efforts gave NO control of a legal private industry's daily business operations to a consortium of federal, state, and local governmental entities. S&W's agreement did.

Ruger's efforts resulted in a bill that was FAR less draconian than the ones that were originally proposed. S&W knuckled under without so much as a whimper, accepting pretty much everthing that the Clinton administration couldn't get passed through Congress.

I'm not very happy with Ruger's actions, but any stretch of the imagination. But to say that they're in the same league with S&W's actions, and continuing inaction, is a fantasy.

[seeker_two]

Ruger's actions, while not admirable, at least kept the firearms business IN BUSINESS i.r. selling to the public at large.

S&W (pre-STH-buyout) compromised the sale of firearms to the pubilc.

S&W (post-STH-buyout) has been working to get out of said agreement before the gov't tries to "enforce" it.

I'm interested in seeing what Ruger does post-AWB.... :confused:

[gun-fucious]

me thinks Diane Feinstein's addition of the Ruger Mini 14
to the Assault Weapon listing this year,
has proven to the gun industry,
that when you make deals with the antis you will eventually loose.

[willyjixx]

ruger wont change much if at all. i wrote em a letter asking about magazine capacities after the AWB an there response was they quit making "Hi-caps" begore that went into effect an wont be remanufacturing them later

[Cosmoline]

Old Rugers and Old S&W's are far superior to anything put out by either company now. Want a new revolver? Go with Taurus. Their quality control is improving greatly as is their customer service. And they are committed to the RKBA.

[JohnBT]

Point of order, or, I got a question.

SaxonPig,

I've never heard a word about Wm. Ruger testifying before Congress. Do you have an info on this?

I've read that he sent a letter dated March 30, 1989 to every member, but nothing about any testifying.

John

[.45Ruger]

ruger wont change much if at all. i wrote em a letter asking about magazine capacities after the AWB an there response was they quit making "Hi-caps" begore that went into effect an wont be remanufacturing them later

I have to say that this will not bother me at all. I have a Ruger P95. After reading all of these quotes, and if I can verify them it will be my last Ruger. That being said I am going to want Standard Capacity mags fo my gun. I have no doubt that if the AWB expires a third party company will step up and manufacture the mags that Ruger won't.

[dandean316]

Old Rugers and Old S&W's are far superior to anything put out by either company now. Want a new revolver? Go with Taurus.

I really try to buy American, but you are right. Buying a Brazillian made gun probably helps our freedoms out better - they I know at least pushed NRA memberships.

[Futo Inu]

"I've heard that the claims about Ruger helping the AWB are either exaggerated or untruthful. I read an article against that theory once but I don't remember where."

Bravo Sierra. Ruger does more to destroy your gun rights before 9 am than S&W does all day.

There is unequivocal, undeniable proof that Ruger THE COMPANY urged Congress to pass the homeland defense rifle ban in 94 (in the form of a letter which is part of the public domain), in order to help its market share, as it was getting killed in handguns by Glocks, etc., since Ruger pistols didn't have the same capacity (well, the active participation in the destruction of our rights is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt - the reason Ruger may argue). The president of Ruger stated on behalf of HIS COMPANY that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds". S&W can't hold a candle to what Ruger did, and has never apologized for or in any way acted to undo whatsoever. Anyone who buys a Ruger or recommends that another do so is nessarily in one of these 5 categories:

1. They're ignorant of what Ruger did (in which case all true freedom-lovers need to help inform them, early and often); or
2. They don't give a flip about gun rights (ya know, the duck hunters, et al)
3. They're too freakin stupid to realize that when a company actively participates in the destruction of our gun rights, they're going to do it again and again, if you don't make them pay dearly with a boycott; or
4. They so stupid they think that since Bill Sr. croaked, something's changed in the company, or that somehow excuses their actions as a COMPANY, which has never been made up for in any manner whatsoever; or
5. They're so stupid they can't remember back 9 years ago, or think that times should heal all wounds of active gun rights destruction participation, for some reason.

There is no other option. If YOU buy Rugers, then what category are YOU in? Because number 1 is the only semi-excusable category.

Ruger the man was speaking and acting for Ruger the company in 1994, and so until Ruger the company rights the wrong that it did to all of US (by say, for example, spending millions on a campaign to make sure the sunsetting HDR ban does not get re-enacted), then it MUST DIE. Ruger is laughing at all the suckers that bought and still buy their products despite its active encouragement of the ban - are YOU one of those suckers at whom the ruger execs are laughing at all the way to the bank in their Jaguars and Mercedes? I'd be laughing too if I helped pass the most sweeping 2nd amendment violation since the '34 act (arguably even more violative) to help my bottom line, metaphorically kicking all gun owners directly in the nads (even those that don't realize it, like the duck hunters who will one day be affected by the slippery slope), and the public did not even bat an eye, not even those sucker gun-rights-nuts over at TFL/THR, and as a result, I have 2 summer vacation homes, sports cars, lots of stock options to exercise, and my kids are in private school (the Ruger execs).

The boycott is and always has been still on, is far more important than the still ongoing boycott of S&W, because of the magnitude of the action, and to the extent people don't know of the boycott or are not participating in it, it's only because of one of the 5 conditions above. Again, 1 is excusable. Let's educated every gun owner in America about what Ruger did. 2-5 are not excusable, so if you think they are, then you really don't care about gun rights (category 2), or you think you do, but you really value your immediate gratification (think Homer - "MMMM, Rugers") over your and my gun rights, and those of your child and grandchildren. If that's the case, fine, but please admit it - don't make some weak-azz justification of why you think it's OK to buy Ruger. There are dozens of oustanding gun makers(like Ruger is - no question about it), but that DON'T actively participate in annihiliting our gun rights - why not give your $$ to them, instead of Ruger, who does? If you haven't heard about things, it's not because *I* haven't done my part in continually bringing up the subject. But some of the moderators and long-timers here need to take a good look at themselves, because they've stood by silent all this time, while others are allowed to speak well of Ruger without correction. There is no way to separate enjoyment of gun ownership with the future of gun rights, and therefore the subject cannot and must not be ignored, or you're no better than Feinstein and Shcumer's boot-licking toadies in HCI and VPC IMO (if you buy Ruger knowlingly). Enough rant for now. I think you get my drift. Any questions? And whose gonna help me continually bring up the subject each and EVERY time Ruger's name is mentioned in one of these threads - whether or not it makes a difference as to the ultimate purchasing outcome of the THR'er, at least a passin mention needs to be made about Ruger's negatives each time someone mentions a positive about them. Who's gonna help on this that may have formerly been falling down on the job? And if you think I'm wrong or too harsh, I sure would like to see some explanation for any justification of why Ruger shouldn't die on the vine (with some successor buying the name, tooling, rights, etc., of course) - cuz I haven't yet heard anything justfiable. Just a sec, lemme find a link to the full story of the sellout...Buy Taurus folks, or even S&W over Ruger.

[Futo Inu]

[The following is from Neal Knox]

"Steve Sanetti says 'I know better' than to ascribe Bill Ruger's
magazine ban proposal to business considerations. Maybe so; I don't
think Bill is by any means 'anti-gun,' nor do I think he really
_wants_ a ban on either guns or magazines (after all, he got his
start as a machine gun designer). But I do think Bill Ruger is pushing
a plan that would protect his business while affecting only his
competitors, and I think he's damaging the efforts of those of us
attempting to stop all proposed bans. Further, I don't think his actions
on this issue, and other issues in the past, allows him to be described
as 'the strongest supporter of our Constitutional right to keep and
bear arms.'

"What I do *know* is that about 9 p.m. the night before Bill sent a
letter to certain members of Congress calling for a ban on high-capacity
magazines he called me, wanting me to push such a ban. His opening
words, after citing the many federal, state and local bills to ban
detachable magazine semi-autos, were 'I want to save our little gun' --
which he later defined as the Mini-14 and the Mini-30. I'm not ascribing
Bill's motives as 'expedient from a business standpoint;' - Bill did.

"While I agree that a ban on over-15 magazines would be 'indefinitely
preferable' to a ban on the guns that use them, that's not the question.
Neither I, nor the other gun groups have ever believed that we were
faced with such an either/or choice. Early last year the NRA legislative
Policy committee discussed various alternatives to the proposed 'assault
weapons' ban, and wisely decided that magazine restrictions wouldn't
satisfy our foes, but would make it more difficult to stop a gun ban.

"I was particularly shocked when I realized Bill was talking about a
ban on possession of over-15-round magazines, rather than a ban on
sales (which is bad enough). I told him that such a law would make
me a felon, for not only did I have standard over-15 magazines for
my Glock pistol (a high-capacity which has sharply cut into Ruger's
police business), I have many high-cap mags for guns I don't even own,
and don't even know where they all are. As I told Bill, after a
lifetime of accumulating miscellaneous gun parts and accessories,
there's no way I could clean out all my old parts drawers and boxes,
then swear -- subject to a five or ten-year Federal prison term --
that I absolutely didn't have an M3 grease gun mag or 30-round M-2
magazine lying in some forgotten drawer.

"Bill said (and all these direct quotes are approximate). 'No,
there'd be amnesty for people like you. We have to propose a ban on
possession before they could take us seriously.' He contended that
the public's problem was with 'firepower,' which could be resolved
by eliminating high capacity mags.

"I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered,
but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap
magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't
to eliminate 'firepower' but 'firearms.'

"Bill finally said, 'Neal, you're being very negative about it.' He
got angry, then said 'Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will.'
And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence
indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined
'regulation' of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone
a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as
standard for either rifles or pistols.

"I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly
or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap
mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that
'the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize
there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such
guns.'

"Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's
the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to
propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect
what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the
Second Amendment."

[Standing Wolf]

Rugers are the guns with safety messages for idiots stamped into the barrels or frames. Smith & Wessons are the guns made by the company that hopped into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime.

I just took my new 1951 five-screw K-22 to the range this afternoon. It antedates Smith & Wesson's betrayal of the Second Amendment by quite a few years—and it's a dandy gun, too.

[fallingblock]

We ought to encourage Taurus to relocate all their manufacturing in Florida:D

Poor old Bill...it looks like he had a 'panic-attack' as well as a classic 'conflict of interests'...the Second Amendment vs. a business opportunity :eek:

I agree with Mike that what S&W did was far worse for America's gun owners, but Bill Ruger certainly didn't do us any favors.:mad:

[Cosmoline]

"We ought to encourage Taurus to relocate all their manufacturing in Florida"

Great idea! Not only are they pro-RKBA, they've been far more willing to try new things than the more conservative US brands. First titanium revolvers, first mass market .454 Casull, etc. Given time and some of S&W's old engineers and they'd be the best gunsmiths in the world.

[dandean316]

Anyone who buys a Ruger or recommends that another do so is nessarily in one of these 5 categories: 1. They're ignorant of what Ruger did

Well I guess I fall into this category. I knew I needed a reason to sell off my .41 Redhawk :D

Seriously though, who the heck do we buy from if we want to buy American products? And I noticed on another thread Taurus is working on the smart gun technology with the government, so they may be out of the picture too? I guess money is more important to these guys, or they see it like the duck hunters ;)