huntsman
Member
^well I'm not a collector but I do own pre-64 Winchesters a couple of Colts a few Brownings a S&W and gosh even two Rugers.
and run on OTHER PEOPLE'S cash only.
The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.
If you track MSRP's over the last ten years, Ruger's increases have not even kept up with inflation.However, they are no longer inexpensive guns for the working man.
It's not only highly relevant, it tells the whole story! That Rugers are actually a BETTER value now than they were ten years ago because their prices have risen less than the rate of inflation. The problem is not Ruger, it's your declining dollar.Keeping up with inflation is irrelevant.
It's not only highly relevant, it tells the whole story! That Rugers are actually a BETTER value now than they were ten years ago because their prices have risen less than the rate of inflation. The problem is not Ruger, it's your declining dollar.
This ain't 1982. Raw materials are also a lot more expensive. The industry's legal defense against all those Clinton-era lawsuits has also had an impact. Fuel and electricity is a lot more expensive. Shipping is terribly expensive. The diesel fuel that powers our shipping and transport industry is grossly overpriced. The fact that your $180 in 1982 would be $432 in 2012 dollars, just for inflation, speaks pretty well for Ruger's efficiency.That may be true but it pisses me off that I paid $180. for a new Blackhawk in 1982 and last year I paid over $500. for a new Blackhawk. My wages hasn't doubled in that time.
And that's Ruger's fault???My wages hasn't doubled in that time.