Another Ruger design flaw with the KP345


PDA






DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 04:03 PM
I've owned three Ruger KP345 pistols since they were first introduced, the first two were highly defective, with serious broken parts issues right from the box. In fact the last of the two resulted in Ruger refunding my money in full, and was such an ugly experience in CS(contrary to everything you'll hear from the Ruger hardcore fanclub)that I'm certain I'm persona non grata with the home office in Prescott, check that, I'm positive I am!

At any rate, I conducted a trade with a local shop and came out on top, meaning they owed me some dough at the end stage of the trade, it wasn't that much of a difference so we agreed on a Ruger KP345 .45 auto. I figured I'd sell it and make $200.00 profit easily, I sure as hell had/have no intention of ever owning one for my own use, they are extremely flawed as a design, and I'm well aware of them all, "err" at least I thought I was.

I never really had taken a close look at the rear sight on the P345 before this past week(the other two weren't in my possession long enough to have done so), the one thing I had noticed about them I didn't like, that being the close proximity of the two rear dots to one another and their teency, weency size. For that reason I had originally purchased a set of Tru Dot's from Ruger way back when we still thought we liked each other, but for the obvious had never installed them.

So, enter the current KP345, and sure enough it has those same crappy sights, and of course I have the Tru Dot's for it on hand. It's at this stage I must advise those of you who don't know that the rear sight on the KP345 is a very large dovetail affair that comes with a set screw for securing it, which leads us to the flaw I encountered.

The set screw must be applied until very snug(particularly on the factory Tru Dot's)as the sights are quite loose in the dovetail, this because you can easily move the rear sight without the set screw, just with your fingers. This you cannot afford to have on a defensive pistol, particularly one such as the P345 where that rear sight serves another function, which is to capture a whole passel of parts that your .45 will definitely not run without!

It was when I was inspecting this rear sight arrangement that I noticed the consequence of the necessity of that set screw. You see dove tail sights that require a set screw all have a flaw, that being that the screw pushes up the sight on one side! This creates a cant in the rear sight(on the Ruger this cant is from left to right, a result of the set screw being on the left)that is annoying, or in this instance very, very annoying, a by-product of the close proximity of those dots and the shear size of the rear sight! What this does is make it virtually impossible to center the front with the rear sight, further, if you attempt to compensate for it by drifting the rear sight, you end up exposing the firing pin block, firing pin block spring, and the firing pin block plunger to the elements.

To rectify this I had to install the set screw in a very abreviated fashion(see picture)and blue loctite that bad boy in place, nevertheless, it still cant's up at the left, seasoned shooters will see this right away, newer or younger ones may have some difficulty at first, as of course I attempted to compensate as best I could. I'm never comfy with applying loctite to a major component on the slide, especially on a .45 auto.

I refuse to believe the factory failed to notice the scope of this particular flaw(one of many)to the P345 pistol, they had to have known, and they just didn't care! Seriously, IMHO, the Ruger KP345 platform is right up there with the Nambu, as one of the single worst examples of a factory produced semi-automatic pistol in history, a true POJ.....:)

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Ruger design flaw with the KP345" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
atblis
October 15, 2010, 04:31 PM
That's not really a design flaw. A little bit tighter fit, and it wouldn't cant like that.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 05:00 PM
I have to disagree, the dovetailed rear on the KP345 requires the use of that set screw to maintain continuity with the slide, unfortuneately the set screw is OFF center and the result totally unavoidable, the sight is pushed up at the point of the set screw, even in the modified mounting of mine it's readily apparent!

Are there some tighter fitting specimens? Sure, however of the eighty some thousand in circulation, I'm quite positive that the vast majority are exactly as the one in the photo, I know this, Ruger is well aware of the problem and has done nothing to rectify it, which would require centering the set screw, something that cannot be done due to the location of all the captured springs and components....

gwnorth
October 15, 2010, 05:27 PM
So, if they are that bad of a design and you have had such terrible experience with them, why keep buying them :confused::confused:

I don't understand people who bash something, then go right back out and buy the same thing again. It's not like there are no other choices out there.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 05:35 PM
So, if they are that bad of a design and you have had such terrible experience with them, why keep buying them :confused::confused:

I don't understand people who bash something, then go right back out and buy the same thing again. It's not like there are no other choices out there.
"Ahh" did you read my op?

gwnorth
October 15, 2010, 05:43 PM
Yeah, I did, So you took in a gun that you feel is complete crap on a trade in the hope of dumping it off on someone else for a profit? You then complain about how said gun (your 3rd) is, once again, pure garbage.

Given your whole post, I do not understand why you would except the trade? And why you would want to then sell it off to another gun person when you yourself think it is a POS?

If you truly feel they are as bad as you say, why ever go near one again, and why on earth would you want to foist one off on someone else?

Kymasabe
October 15, 2010, 05:45 PM
Weird. I've had two P345's and loved them. Never had a single problem with either of them. My rear sight never looked canted or wonky either.
My P345's were nice guns and sold quickly when I advertised them locally.
It was my good experiences with the P345's that ultimately led to my purchase of my Ruger SR9c.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 05:53 PM
Yeah, I did, So you took in a gun that you feel is complete crap on a trade in the hope of dumping it off on someone else for a profit? You then complain about how said gun (your 3rd) is, once again, pure garbage.

Given your whole post, I do not understand why you would except the trade? And why you would want to then sell it off to another gun person when you yourself think it is a POS?

If you truly feel they are as bad as you say, why ever go near one again, and why on earth would you want to foist one off on someone else?
Oh please, you are out of line, and soooo tedious! This is pertinent info, and I have every right to make a buck off of a sale, you don't like it? BS! You're just sore that someone is reporting the truth about another poor, to marginal production effort, from a company thats fast becoming disreputable....

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 05:58 PM
Weird. I've had two P345's and loved them. Never had a single problem with either of them. My rear sight never looked canted or wonky either.
My P345's were nice guns and sold quickly when I advertised them locally.
It was my good experiences with the P345's that ultimately led to my purchase of my Ruger SR9c.
But you sold them, both? Likely, you just didn't notice the sight irregularity, many shooters simply compensate for fixed sight issues as a matter of course. The real issue is that you cannot drift the rear sight to compensate without exposing the pistols internals(firing pin block, spring & plunger)to the elements.

MCgunner
October 15, 2010, 06:08 PM
I don't know about the 345, but my KP90DC stays with me! I think Ruger attained perfection in that one. Yeah, it's a little blocky and thick, but it is light enough on the hip at 33 ounces and, man, whadda shooter!

I really don't quite understand the reason for the 345. The P97 is about as compact. The 345 is a tad thinner, no biggy. I'll stick with the P90, though. If I get another .45, it'll likely be something lighter and easier to tote, like a Taurus PT145. Love my Rugers, though. I have the P90, a P85, couple of blackhawks, an Old Army, a Mk2, and a 10/22. I have owned in the past an SP101 and a Security Six. I have NOT owned a "flawed" Ruger and I'd be quite skeptical that the P345 has any "design" flaws. The worst thing I can say about my P90 is the mag release spring is wimpy, had one snap on me a while back after 18 years of shooting various competitions and carry and lots of practice rounds. God only knows the round count in that thing and it shoots good as new. A call to Ruger and I had a new spring in the mail box in 3 days free of charge.....:what: Good on ya, Ruger!

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 06:51 PM
I don't know about the 345, but my KP90DC stays with me! I think Ruger attained perfection in that one. Yeah, it's a little blocky and thick, but it is light enough on the hip at 33 ounces and, man, whadda shooter!

I really don't quite understand the reason for the 345. The P97 is about as compact. The 345 is a tad thinner, no biggy. I'll stick with the P90, though. If I get another .45, it'll likely be something lighter and easier to tote, like a Taurus PT145. Love my Rugers, though. I have the P90, a P85, couple of blackhawks, an Old Army, a Mk2, and a 10/22. I have owned in the past an SP101 and a Security Six. I have NOT owned a "flawed" Ruger and I'd be quite skeptical that the P345 has any "design" flaws. The worst thing I can say about my P90 is the mag release spring is wimpy, had one snap on me a while back after 18 years of shooting various competitions and carry and lots of practice rounds. God only knows the round count in that thing and it shoots good as new. A call to Ruger and I had a new spring in the mail box in 3 days free of charge.....:what: Good on ya, Ruger!
The Ruger KP345 has a couple well known design flaws, the rear sight captures critical components, which render the pistol inoperable if for any reason you lose the rear sight, a distinct possibility given the nature of the sights attachment to the slide. The biggest flaw is the magazine disconnect, which I don't believe you can be ignorant of, the pistol is infamous for failing to fire, google "click, no bang."

The magazine disconnect can damage the firing pin on just one dry fire, breaking the pin, it has also been notorious for "false magazine out failure's," in which the disconnect just engages itself due to any of a number of reasons, all of which result in the same inability of the mechanism to fire, a very uncomfortable and nagging concern for someone to consider as they deploy the pistol in a critical situation.

Originally, Ruger didn't even mention the "uhh" uncomfy fact that if you dry fired the P345 without a magazine seated, you'd likely destroy the firing pin, or damage the magazine disconnect itself, it was not mentioned in the manual until after they had sold thousands of P345's first! It was only after they started streaming back to Prescott that Ruger made the changes to the manual alerting the public to the potential(actually a certainty)of damaging the pistol.

The biggest issue however has been Ruger's steadfast refusal to rectify the problem parts, they have never modified the affected components, instead cheerfully fixing the broken pistols as they streamed in, and stream in they have, at one time, they were backed up for months, and yet they never modified the culprit componnets. They have never issued a recall, which leaves thousands of consumers blissfully unaware of the scope of the malfunction potential.

On the other hand, most people do not frequent gun boards such as thr. Many would likely have never even fired the pistol(a very common occurrence)at all, but would be very likely to have dry-fired it, especially those thousands who purchased one before the manual had been updated, think about that, there could be thousands of inoperable P345's in homes of people who haven't a clue......

1KPerDay
October 15, 2010, 06:52 PM
Oh please, you are out of line, and soooo tedious! This is pertinent info, and I have every right to make a buck off of a sale, you don't like it? BS! You're just sore that someone is reporting the truth about another poor, to marginal production effort, from a company thats fast becoming disreputable....
I don't think he's out of line. He makes a lot of sense, actually.

jkulysses
October 15, 2010, 07:01 PM
I don't know about the 345, but my KP90DC stays with me! I think Ruger attained perfection in that one. Yeah, it's a little blocky and thick, but it is light enough on the hip at 33 ounces and, man, whadda shooter!

I really don't quite understand the reason for the 345. The P97 is about as compact. The 345 is a tad thinner, no biggy. I'll stick with the P90, though. If I get another .45, it'll likely be something lighter and easier to tote, like a Taurus PT145. Love my Rugers, though. I have the P90, a P85, couple of blackhawks, an Old Army, a Mk2, and a 10/22. I have owned in the past an SP101 and a Security Six. I have NOT owned a "flawed" Ruger and I'd be quite skeptical that the P345 has any "design" flaws. The worst thing I can say about my P90 is the mag release spring is wimpy, had one snap on me a while back after 18 years of shooting various competitions and carry and lots of practice rounds. God only knows the round count in that thing and it shoots good as new. A call to Ruger and I had a new spring in the mail box in 3 days free of charge.....:what: Good on ya, Ruger!
Same here I love my P90 and I'll never sell it again!!! It was the first semi auto I ever bought and at one time I sold it to my dad cause I needed some money but as soon as I got some spare change again I bought it right back. It's my bedside gun but with the right combo it actually concels pretty good usually under a hoodie.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 07:02 PM
I don't think he's out of line. He makes a lot of sense, actually.
Of course you do, until your Ruger breaks, you're invincible, and you've no time for the reality about their failure....I've never met a more surly group of gun owner then those who own a Ruger. Raving on, and on about how cheerfully Ruger fixes their broken gun, there are just thousands of such accounts about the SR9 alone.....:)

MCgunner
October 15, 2010, 07:02 PM
No, I'm not "ignorant" of the mag disconnect issues. I wouldn't own a gun with a mag disconnect, anyway, though, and is the main reason I never considered the P345. I don't like mag disconnects. Silly, could get you killed, and I don't need it for safety since I don't have any kids at home at my age.....thank God....:D.

hexidismal
October 15, 2010, 07:06 PM
My P345 sights look perfect to me, but they aren't the same sights you have pictured. I bought mine new in 2006 (I think). It's run flawlessly since and is extremely accurate. So much so that it's the only polymer framed pistol I still own. I can't justify getting rid of so good a pistol.

Anyway, back to the sights. Mine has factory sights, but they look very different from the ones pictured. Maybe they changed the design since mine was purchased.

I'll try to get a picture, but it's hard to get a good one on my phone.

JR47
October 15, 2010, 07:16 PM
I own a P345. It has been trouble-free through several thousand rounds, and the rear sight has stayed exactly where it belongs. It is NOT lop-sided, perhaps because I have one of those that are "tight in the dove-tail". Then again, so do most of the others I've seen.

Ruger posted the advisory against dry-firing without a magazine in place in the very first owners manuals. That some people obviously find it easier to blame the company, rather than their own ignorance, is their problem.

I also own a KP90, a pair of P95s, a KP97, and an original, pre-Mk.II P-85. NONE of them have given me a moments trouble in the past 20 years.

At any rate, I conducted a trade with a local shop and came out on top, meaning they owed me some dough at the end stage of the trade, it wasn't that much of a difference so we agreed on a Ruger KP345 .45 auto. I figured I'd sell it and make $200.00 profit easily, I sure as hell had/have no intention of ever owning one for my own use, they are extremely flawed as a design, and I'm well aware of them all, "err" at least I thought I was.

Some people could break a rock, all the while blaming God for creating "flawed" rocks.

After having had such terrible luck with the previous two, it seems ludicrous to accept a third for any purpose. Then, having picked it up, nontheless, to find still more "wrong with it". There are a number of guns on the market today that use the rear sight assembly to house parts, or the grips. They are successful designs, having been on the market for years, successfully despite your "expert opinion" to the contrary.

gwnorth
October 15, 2010, 07:21 PM
Actually, I do not own nor have ever owned a Ruger autoloader. Spin it anyway you like to get you through the day, but it just makes no sense to me to take a gun that you know and loath in a trade, and then post a rant about how terrible it is.

I'd have either insisted on the cash or something else that did not get my blood pressure climbing with disgust.

And yes, I would not knowingly take a gun that I honestly considered "flawed" merely to turn around and sell it to someone else. It's not the taking a gun as part of the trade purely with the intention of selling it. It's the part about taking a gun that I vehemently dislike and feel is of extreme poor design and quality just to turn around and sell it that I disagree with. It just seems to go counter to your strong views against the gun in question.

I don't get it, that's all I'm saying.

hexidismal
October 15, 2010, 07:34 PM
Very grainy picture, but you can see what I mean from my above post.
My factory rear sights look quite different from the ones you have pictured.
I don't know if they since changed the design , or if someone already put weird botched sights on yours before you got it.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/hexidismal29/IMAG0075.jpg

highorder
October 15, 2010, 07:43 PM
For what it's worth, the M&P also uses the rear sight to capture critical parts.

It's a common design flaw then?

benzy2
October 15, 2010, 07:49 PM
I have a problem with buying to sell it, unless you are an FFL holder. Sounds like a straw purchase to me. Either way, I don't get why you would take the pistol if you hate it so much. To then stereo type every other one out there based on the tolerances of yours is a bit narrow as well. I don't care one way or the other about this pistol, or really anything Ruger, but it seems like you went into this one looking for a fight with a pistol you hated. Looks like you found it.

Kymasabe
October 15, 2010, 07:56 PM
regarding my two P345's: I sold them because I'm just not a .45 fan. Had one, tried it, liked the gun, didn't like .45. I kept it and shot if for a year or so but finally got rid of it. Missed it, bought another one a couple of years later, kept it and shot it for a year or so. Got bored with it, still not a huge .45 fan, sold it with a few other guns to pay off some bills.
Personally, I like 9mm. And, regarding mag disconnects, the Ruger SR9c that I now have has a mag disconnect. But, if you're not an m.g. fan, is easily removable, also allowing you to dry fire without causing any striker damage.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 08:28 PM
RE: Post 17, No, they did not! I know this because I purchased one of the very first P345's in March of 04(3-digitSN). They only ante'd up a warning when the pistols began to "click no Bang" in large numbers.
Lets be clear here, If your P345 hasn't failed, great! But the the truth is that many, many thousands have, and the very first thousands sold, were sold without any warning of this potential whatsoever....The only action taken by Ruger was to add the warning to later publications and cheerfully fix them for you as they failed....

MattTheHat
October 15, 2010, 08:31 PM
This is pertinent info, and I have every right to make a buck off of a sale, you don't like it?

But, doesn't that put you on EXACTLY the same level as Ruger? I mean, you've been ragging on them for selling a product they know is flawed. Just like knew you'd be doing when you went into the purchase.


-Matt

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 08:32 PM
I have a problem with buying to sell it, unless you are an FFL holder. Sounds like a straw purchase to me. Either way, I don't get why you would take the pistol if you hate it so much. To then stereo type every other one out there based on the tolerances of yours is a bit narrow as well. I don't care one way or the other about this pistol, or really anything Ruger, but it seems like you went into this one looking for a fight with a pistol you hated. Looks like you found it.
Well it's not, it's perfectly legal for me to turn right around and sell a NIB pistol that I got at less then half price for a profit...visit the legal forum once in a while...

MattTheHat
October 15, 2010, 08:34 PM
Why can't you you raise a bit of the sight metal using a center punch, offset from the center the same amount as the set screw (though on the other side of the center line)?

That would make the sight cant the other direction when you initially install it, and then level out as you tighten the set screw. I don't own any Ruger pistols, so I may be missing something. You are correct, though. The sight appear to be canted almost exactly 1 degree, when measured.


-Matt

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 08:37 PM
But, doesn't that put you on EXACTLY the same level as Ruger? I mean, you've been ragging on them for selling a product they know is flawed. Just like knew you'd be doing when you went into the purchase.


-Matt
I only accepted the trade because it was well below retail, and yes, why shouldn't I sell it? Here I am offering some insight into the P345 and there are folks who still refuse to acknowledge it's very well documented failings, instead attacking me for delivering the message...I didn't produce this pistol, Ruger did!

MattTheHat
October 15, 2010, 08:43 PM
No, you didn't produce this pistol, but why does that matter? You've indicated you went into the deal knowing about this design flaw, yet still purchased the pistol to sell, so you could make some money.

Sounds to me like the difference is that you've admitted you knew about the problem. At this point Ruger could claim ignorance or just disagree with your opinion.

I'm not trying to attack you, it just seems weird that you're characterizing Ruger's actions as being so disreputable, but at the same time admit to doing the same exact thing.


-Matt

JDGray
October 15, 2010, 10:06 PM
My P345s rear sight was so tight fitting, I didn't think it would ever come off!:D After I removed the garbage from under it, the mags dropped free, as they should have from Ruger, and the FP block trash was no longer a worry. My particular specimin, did come with a bent camblock, but it sure didn't effect the accuracy. This is by far the softest shooting 45ACP, I have ever fired, and probably the most accurate. I agree, the model has been riddled with problems, but don't blame Ruger if an aftermarket sight don't fit tight.;)

The sight in your pic looks straight to me(Judging by the equal gap), the hammer, on the otherhand, is not.

benzy2
October 15, 2010, 10:47 PM
Well it's not, it's perfectly legal for me to turn right around and sell a NIB pistol that I got at less then half price for a profit...visit the legal forum once in a while...At best you are in a cloudy area and at worst you are breaking the law. The wordings I have seen have been such that if you spend effort buying/trading/selling firearms with the goal of making a profit you are breaking the law. You can sell some of your personal collection (regardless of intent of making a profit) but you can't buy and sell firearms with the sole intent of profit. The fine line is the intent you had for the firearm. If it was a pistol for the collection it's not an issue. If it was bought strictly to flip with intent of a profit, you are acting as a dealer and need an FFL. You have made the intent fairly clear that the pistol was acquired strictly for profit.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:12 PM
My P345s rear sight was so tight fitting, I didn't think it would ever come off!:D After I removed the garbage from under it, the mags dropped free, as they should have from Ruger, and the FP block trash was no longer a worry. My particular specimin, did come with a bent camblock, but it sure didn't effect the accuracy. This is by far the softest shooting 45ACP, I have ever fired, and probably the most accurate. I agree, the model has been riddled with problems, but don't blame Ruger if an aftermarket sight don't fit tight.;)

The sight in your pic looks straight to me(Judging by the equal gap), the hammer, on the otherhand, is not.
The sight was manufactured by Ruger, it is certainly better fitting after I modified it's seating, thus the nature of my OP.

Mags
October 15, 2010, 11:14 PM
So you are judging an entirely different pistol you have never handled, due to a different model of the same manufacturer made like 5 years ago? ROFL!

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:15 PM
No, you didn't produce this pistol, but why does that matter? You've indicated you went into the deal knowing about this design flaw, yet still purchased the pistol to sell, so you could make some money.

Sounds to me like the difference is that you've admitted you knew about the problem. At this point Ruger could claim ignorance or just disagree with your opinion.

I'm not trying to attack you, it just seems weird that you're characterizing Ruger's actions as being so disreputable, but at the same time admit to doing the same exact thing.


-Matt
You didn't read my OP, the sight was not known to me as flawed, just that I didn't like the tiny rear dots, it's why I originally purchased the Ruger/Tru Dot NS.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:17 PM
So you are judging an entirely different pistol you have never handled, due to a different model of the same manufacturer made like 5 years ago? ROFL!
"Err" did you read the OP? Your post is nonsensical..:)

Mags
October 15, 2010, 11:18 PM
Sure is I thought I was in the other Ruger hate thread you were partaking in, my bad. In this thread your posts makes perfect sense.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:25 PM
Wow, it's not my fault that Ruger produces a high incidence of defect, I'm just reporting on this particular example, and just look at the replies, seriously, some of you are just incapable of a reasonable exchange of info. You would think that they(Ruger)haven't had to offer two major recalls over the past 5-years, clearly those were just the result of cheerfully superior customer service, combined with inferior customers who just don't know how to appreciate a great product...:)

Balrog
October 15, 2010, 11:27 PM
I think you guys are being trolled.

Who but a troll would post a story about buying 3 guns they thought were innately flawed and then try to sell one for a profit to som unsuspecting person, and somehow think that they have not perpetuated the problem? No one with a conscience would sell a knowingly defective defense pistol to someone else unless they have a complete disregard for that person's safety.

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:29 PM
Sure is I thought I was in the other Ruger hate thread you were partaking in, my bad. In this thread your posts makes perfect sense.
Hate Ruger? See how it is, the truth hitting you squarely between the eyes and it's just Ruger hate? Amazing, you can lead the parched to water, but they hold out for kool-aid anyway...

Mags
October 15, 2010, 11:32 PM
Man I have no pony in the stable in this argument. I don't own a Ruger, I do own a Glock. I thought I was commenting in the SD40 thread and mistakenly added my 2 cents in this one. Can't you read where I say you are making perfect sense, or are you so blinded you can't even tell when someone agrees with you?

DenaliPark
October 15, 2010, 11:36 PM
Man I have no pony in the stable in this argument. I don't own a Ruger, I do own a Glock. I thought I was commenting in the SD40 thread and mistakenly added my 2 cents in this one. Can't you read where I say you are making perfect sense, or are you so blinded you can't even tell when someone agrees with you?
Read the mindless responses to my OP, then come back and tell me about mistaken! Now I'm a troll because I can afford to buy guns? I swear you can't make this crap up, some of these folks are in the double digits...

Mags
October 15, 2010, 11:39 PM
I actually appreciate this thread it has facts in it and is good information.

Balrog
October 15, 2010, 11:54 PM
Now I'm a troll because I can afford to buy guns?

Perhaps you are not a troll but buying a gun that you think is fundamentally flawed three times just sounds crazy to most people. Then you trash Ruger for making a flawed design, and try to sell it to some unwitting person.

If you really think it is flawed don't you feel kind of bad selling someone a gun that might not work and lead to them getting killed?

Prion
October 16, 2010, 08:24 AM
I'm not trying to attack you, it just seems weird that you're characterizing Ruger's actions as being so disreputable, but at the same time admit to doing the same exact thing.

Bingo!!!

Sorry Denali, you're being a hypocrite.

Not a Ruger fan for what it's worth but your plan and complaint is flawed.

JDGray
October 16, 2010, 08:45 AM
The sight was manufactured by Ruger, it is certainly better fitting after I modified it's seating, thus the nature of my OP.

I couldn't find the NS offered as an option, on new Rugers. Seen them in the store, along with Galco, and a lot of other stuff Ruger don't make. Did your factory equipped sight come off by hand? Just wondering:cool:

Johnny Guest
October 16, 2010, 08:51 AM
DenaliPark has made his point and there's little or nothing that the rest of us can do to help.

Hope things work out for you, DP.

CLOSED.

Johnny

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Ruger design flaw with the KP345" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!