Why NOT a 9mm Ruger?

[gumshoe4]

I apologize for going off-topic.

Ron is correct.

Please excuse my somewhat sarcastic reply to Daniel. I get a little annoyed when someone makes a very slanted statement without having the facts straight or even without any supporting data at all.

Bill Ruger intended from the beginning to make firearms for law-abiding citizens and those have been the firearms he designed and built. While a few of them, notably the select-fire version of the Mini-14, were designed specifically for the law enforcement market, Ruger's other designs were made for ownership by private citizens and were, in some cases, adopted by law enforcement agencies (the Mini-14, some of the DA revolvers and some of the semi-auto pistols in a few law enforcement agencies). A large share of the business of S&W, Glock and Sig has been devoted to law enforcement and military application, with sales to citizens essentially incidental to the main part of the business. Several companies, including S&W and Glock, have relied on their law enforcement contracts to keep them alive at the expense of their sales to private citizens and have made some pretty unpopular marketing and business decisions over the last 5-10 years. S&W is just now coming out of its sales slump which directly resulted from private gun owners avoiding the brand after the Clinton HUD agreement, which is now essentially dead in the water. Glock is just starting to have its own problems, primarily related to its slide rail difficulties and its apparent disinterest in taking care of private Glock owners, relying instead on taking care of the law enforcement contracts in order to maintain its business status.

By comparison, Ruger has very few major law enforcement contracts. Officers who carry Rugers do so primarily because they buy them themselves. Ruger is, and always has been, the gun for the common man and the private citizen. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

With regard to Bill Ruger's statement about magazines, I will be the first to state that his comments were ill-advised, if not outright stupid. Mr. Ruger later realized he stuck his foot in his mouth and tried to make amends. His comments were bad and uncalled-for, but that's ALL they were. They did not result in the imposition of the 10-round magazine law. The politicians were going to do that no matter what Bill Ruger said and I suspect that most of them did not even know what Ruger said. What Bill Ruger said or did PALES IN COMPARISON to what Smith & Wesson did. Moreover, it should be clearly noted that Ruger has stood fast in the face of the civil liability lawsuits brought forth by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (or whatever its current name is) and the municipalities involved. Ruger has put its money where its mouth is and has used its legal department to deal with these lawsuits. S&W's agreement was merely a dodge to avoid the lawsuits, but it didn't work.

I'd be interested to know if there's anyone here who has never made a stupid statement or two which affected others. I think we need to be careful how we judge Ruger, his company and his firearms. I also think that if we are going to make statements like Daniel did, we better back them up with some facts and some common sense and not just spout the latest hyperbole we've heard someone say.

OK, rant off. I'll take my heat, if I have to, but that's the way I feel about it.

Back on topic, the Ruger autopistols are topnotch and I recommend them highly, as I previously stated.

Respectfully,

Bob
TFL# 8032

 

[Soap]

Bob,

I took no offense. The fact that Bill uttered the "honest man" or the "I never intended" quotes on TV (not to mention other remarks in American Handgunner was downright stupid. And insulting. The fact that the founder of a gun company would even say that just shows me where his loyalties lie. He basically alienated his biggest market. But now that he has passed on, its no longer an issue for me.

The issue for me is that Ruger's company seems to cater to the crowd that thinks all guns should be banned besides the ones they hunt with. If I were in Ruger's position, I would make 10-rounders and ship them by the thousands to poor Kalifornians. I believe that Ruger's founder created a legacy of catering to the flabby flannel crowd and ignoring the RKBA crowd. They really haven't done anything to change my perception. YMMV of course.

 

[gumshoe4]

Whatever, Daniel. You said your piece and, as one of the "flabby flannel crowd" you rather insultingly referred to, I said mine.

Let's get back on topic.

Anyone else with opinions, hints and kinks regarding Ruger semiauto pistols?

Bob
TFL# 8032

 

[Gary A]

As a minor addendum to the criticism that Ruger regularly receives over the magazine limit, both their perceived part in it and their failure to produce 10 round magazines for the Mini, I would like to note, in their favor, that while many companies are adding built-in key locks of various configurations to all of their products, Ruger continues to produce plain-jane autopistols and revolvers built on the presumption emobodied in their logo "Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens", i.e. they expect the buyer to be responsible. That doesn't appear to be "caving in" at all since it will likely cost them sales in certain states. I think Mr. Ruger had his own ideas on many things and made a mistake on the magazine question and continues to pay for it even after he is gone. I continue to pay for some of my earlier mistakes also, as do most of us. Such is life.

 

[jonptoms]

Quote: Lets set the record straight: Bill Ruger did not call for 10 shot magazines, he called for a 15 round limit (probably to counter Glock's 17 rnd. mag.) . He latter recanted and made a $ 1 million donation to the NRA.

Not true. A paraphrased quote from Ruger was "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds".

Back to the original topic, I've had a Ruger p85-Mark II since they came out. It was a steal back then, and it has been the most reliable gun I've ever seen. Feeds empty resized cases.

No indications of wear after all these years. Breaks down real easy too, and hi cap mags are cheap.

ONly thing I don't like is the decocker, but they were all the rage back then. I'm sure now you can get one of the decock only versions (the decocker on the p85-m2 is also a safety, but it works in the wrong direction )

 

[wildthing]

In 9mm the P-95 is a great pistol. feels good in the hand, very reliable, recoil does not happen and it rides very well in a belt holster.

If you are looking at other Ruger 9mms the P-93 has a smoother trigger than the 95 but you pay more and they are harder to find. the 94 is bigger than the 93 and 95. The triggers on these pistols are easier to reach than the p85 through p91.

I could not describe the P85- P91 as feeling good in the hand. A Houge replacement grip did make these pistols feel better.

I would highly recommend the P-95dc the polymer frame has one of the best melted/dehorned feels of any pistols out there.

 

[chaim]

, I would like to note, in their favor, that while many companies are adding built-in key locks of various configurations to all of their products, Ruger continues to produce plain-jane autopistols and revolvers

To me that is a major negative as that means I can no longer buy their handguns.

Luckily, (since I want a GP100, a Single Six and a Vaquero) they have told local dealers that they will be producing MD legal handguns soon (hence, guns w/ built-in locks).

I do hope for the rest of you that it is an option so you can get them without it, unlike some of you I'm not so selfish. To hope a company never adds the locks means for some of us they are illegal- and frankly I like the choice allowed when I can get them. Why shouldn't they at least add them as options for people in states like mine, or who happen to want them (I'm sure there are some people like that).

 

[Gary A]

Well, Chaim, since I generally don't like to think of myself as outrageously selfish, I thought I'd reply. I have some guns with added safeties (Winchester, Marlin, and Rossi/LSI leverguns) and don't find them too onerous (many do) but I am not enamored of the Smith and Wesson and Taurus locks, for example. I'm sure they are fine and one day I might just accept them as normal but, having said that, I much prefer the models and manufacturers that expect the user to have the sense not to shoot himself or to place his/her weapon where unauthorized people, especially children can shoot themselves or someone else. If all manufacturers add the locks to please the legislators in, say, your state, then you get something close to what you want, and I have to live with what you get also. That sounds selfish on the part of folks in your state. I hope they make special models for folks who can't get the regular models, but most likely manufacturers will make one model to meet the lowest common denominator and the rest of us will have to live with what your legislators desire and with what the voters in your state allow. I'm sorry for your legislature...heck, I'm sorry for mine, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the thing I like about Rugers is their lack of extra added doohickies designed to protect me (and them) from my own stupidity and bottom-feeding trial lawyers looking for a bigger house. Safeties or the lack of them are not my bottom-line when it comes to purchase, but it's nice to know that the "arms-maker for the responsible citiizen" considers us to be just that - responsible. Yah wanna lock up the gun? That's what a gun-safe is designed to do. Why should everyone have to live by the short-sighted standards set upon you by your legislators?

P.S. (This is the edited part.) Since I came across a bit irritated with you above, let me apologize for that. I have read your posts here and on TFL over the past couple of years or so and realize that you are an enthusiastic handgunner and are really enjoying your foray into this recreation. If you're anything like me you probably want to be sure you get the things you want to keep before some bozo says you can't have them, so I really sympathize with your worry about not being able to buy firearms without the locks. Let's all work for the day that such possibilities are just a fading concern and not a cause for division amongst shooters and appeasement among manufacturers. All this "anti" stuff isn't about guns anyway...it's only about power.

 

[chaim]

If all manufacturers add the locks to please the legislators in, say, your state, then you get something close to what you want, and I have to live with what you get also. That sounds selfish on the part of folks in your state.

I'm pretty sure I covered that by saying I hope they add them as options.

I do understand that most that bother will be going the easy way and putting them on standard and I have a problem with that.

As far as your PS, don't worry about it. I probably should have used a less loaded word than selfish myself, I understand not wanting locks and most people don't think that some areas are adding these infernal laws.

Also, I see the best outcome being my state overturning this horrid law and no other state passing one. Unfortunately, I think that is unlikely. In addition to this state never repealing a "gun control" law I'm sure other like minded states (IL, MA, NY, CA, NJ) will probably be adding them soon.

However, even if these laws die the death they deserve, I would like to see manufacturers making built-in locks available as an option (shouldn't be too hard, how many, like Ruger, make the same gun available w/ a decocker safety, decocker only, DAO, etc. and even like CZ w/ safety, SA, decocker, etc). Some people probably appreciate them and for them they should be available. Then if they can't sell enough to people who choose them the locks should die a gentle death (the old free market thing).

 

[Gary A]

Chaim, good points all. I especially agree with you that without those "infernal" (apt word) laws, the marketplace would easily determine which features survived and which would not. A lot of it is what one is used to. I got into leverguns after the cross-bolt safeties came in and they don't bother me at all. Lever-guys who "teethed" on the older versions just plain can't stand 'em. I kinda feel that way about Ruger and Smith and Wesson revolvers. Safety locks? Yuck!! (What I really think is not appropriate to post but it rhymes.)