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

[eliphalet]

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]

I agree with the last poster about Ruger.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ruger Sales in 2006

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]

Note: Bill is dead, His son has resigned. They will be following current trends as the company is not stupid.

 

[SnWnMe]

Yeah they make nice golf clubs.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

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]

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]

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]

If Ruger Had Brains They Would........

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]

My .02

+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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Or upgrade the SP101 to 40S&W?

We think alike.

 

[Croyance]

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]

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]

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]

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