Weird ROA posibility


March 24, 2012, 08:28 AM
You know, you can build an entirely Harley Davidson or even more complex, Shelby Mustang or Cobra without having one HD, Shelby or Ford part in it. I've got an Austin Mini with a JDM Honda engine in it and am constructing a 1969 Shelby with no Ford or Shelby parts...what am I saying? As unlikely as it seems, it may be possible to make an ROA or more likely, an improved ROA without any Ruger parts in it. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
I would have to change two parts to make a no Ruger parts, Ruger. The barrel and the frame. The barrel would be easy, the frame not so much.

A cottage industry could come about if demand is sufficient. Yes they would be expensive but quality and improvements of what I envision would justifiably be an expensive project.

If you enjoyed reading about "Weird ROA posibility" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
robert garner
March 24, 2012, 08:58 AM
Funny you should mention that. I've long wondered why Ruger never made an "Old Navy"
Ingredients; One Uberti 36 Remington, a colt style Navy grip, fit an oversized center pin, and a Ruger styled loading lever, cut Cyl face back leaving an extension proud of the face, to keep the pin clean, a round barell and adjustable rear sight. This would get you pretty close,eh?
I've never handled a Remington, there may be a dozen reasons this wouldn't work, what say you?

4v50 Gary
March 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
If there is enough demand, Ruger could probably make more. Marketing tries to figure out what sells and after mgmt takes existing stock at hand, they give production a schedule. Ruger has to retool its line to make production as fast and efficient as possible. When the production is finished, the tooling is taken down, jigs put away and new tooling installed and jigs set up.

March 24, 2012, 02:39 PM
In fact, Ruger changed their production philosophy from that scenario. They used to do just as you have described for each model; they'd attempt to predict how many of each model would sell in a certain period of time, then they'd tool up and produce that number of one model, storing the results, tearing down and setting up for the next model and so on. The change was to build more models in parallel, each at a slower pace so they'd only have a couple of months of inventory at any one time. The ROA didn't have enough projected sales to justify occupying the necessary production resources in competition with other models.

As far as a more expensive, 'improved' model, or a .36 cal version, take a clue from the fact that the original is no longer in production. And consider that 'improved' is in the eye of the beholder.

March 26, 2012, 10:11 AM
I would have liked something heavier. Like perhaps 50 or 52 caliber C&B rev.

Wonder if it would have been possible to make a gun with interchangeable cylinders and barrels. one in 22, one in 36 and one in 45. Make the 36, so it can shoot 38 Special lead.

A buddy of mine tinkered with a barrel insert that would screw in with a sleeve that threads over the insert in the cylinder space. It converts the revolver to a single shot 22 caliber C&B gun.

March 26, 2012, 01:40 PM
I play board wargames and years ago companies went from making so many games and having a number left on shelves to taking orders. When the orders get to where they are in money making status they start producing them. Now companies found they could make money that way. Sometime they do reprints, but doubt that would work with firearms. But surely there are enough of us who'd like a new ROA to put in a big order so that it would make money for them.

4v50 Gary
March 26, 2012, 07:47 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that given equal demand, if gun A is being produced and it cost $1 million to retool the line for Gun B, Ruger will not shut down the line for B. this is why the X-GI (7.62 mm NATO version of the Mini-14 was never produced).

March 26, 2012, 10:10 PM
From Wikipedia...

"A larger version of the Mini-14, called the XGI, was developed by Ruger in .308 Winchester and .243 Winchester. Although it was advertised in 19841985, it never entered production due to unresolved mechanical and production issues."

4v50 Gary
March 26, 2012, 10:52 PM
The mechanical issue was the fifth shot being thrown. Engineers at Ruger resolved this by adding a massive weight to the op-pod/slide. Bill Ruger was not too happy about that.

BTW, I learned this at Ruger's Mini-14 Armourer School in New Hampshire and not from the web.

Sorry for straying and the X-GI was only mentioned to share some insights into Ruger mgmt philosophy. If someone wants, they may cut and paste this to a new thread at the Rifle Forum. Back to the ROA.

Jim K
March 26, 2012, 10:55 PM
Ruger, or any other gun company, will produce a blunderbuss, a Pepperbox with each barrel a different caliber, a double derringer in .500 S&W, or any other nutty idea IF there is enough demand in the form of solid money-down orders. They won't invest several million dollars based on nothing but someone's idea posted on a web site.


March 27, 2012, 01:23 AM
I think if they'd made a .36 ROA, [Ruger Old Navy?] it might have generated enough interest to keep the black powder Ruger line alive. Judging from the high prices ROA's are pulling down over on SASS, it might just have been a sales ''slump'' causing the marketing department to panic, anyways.

4v50 Gary
March 27, 2012, 05:54 AM
A smaller .36 caliber ROA? That would be neat.

If you enjoyed reading about "Weird ROA posibility" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!