Loosedhorse
member
Cute might be one word for that rule. You seem unfamiliar with the other concepts it embodies.
But you serve as a shining example to me. Your immoderate insults toward a dead man tell me nothing about him...but a lot about you.
Bill Ruger
- Thread starter Super Sneaky Steve
- Start date
- Status
But you serve as a shining example to me. Your immoderate insults toward a dead man tell me nothing about him...but a lot about you.
helitack32f1 posted
helitack32f1 posted
Lots of people will say that a silly limit is how a gun "looks" and "feel". I happen to think how a gun performs is the best indicator of quality.
I have a Kel Tec PF9 with easily 2500 or so rounds through it in the last 9 months I have owned it. It goes bang every time, handle everything I feed it (including reloads), and is very accurate. I will say it is not very pretty to look at and the blueing has worn ALOT, but it works and works well. To me that is a quailty firearm. I also have a Kel Tec P3AT. It only has 200 rounds but performs perfectly.
, I can agree with you that they are crude looking. But, in my opinion, no other company in their price range offers nearly as good of a product. I assume one reason they can offer the product at the price they do is because they do not put emphasis on looks. My next firearm is probably going to be a kel tec P11. Mainly because I can feel confident that I am going to get a gun that works and works well. It is innovative since I really can't find another double stack 9 that is as small and lightwieght (I guess if I give Ruger a little while that will change
) and best of all I can get one out the door new for $250.....can't beat that.
I honestly am not trying to be rude, but you seem to have gone out of your way to slam Kel Tec.
Also I am a huge Ruger Fan. I currently have 12 handguns and 8 are Rugers, but I have to admit the LCP is a P3AT copy. I have no problem with it though. They took Kel Tec's gun and made it look better and added a saftey. It offers a little more for a little more money, but they hardly took a blank sheet of paper when they started it.
And as far as the OP goes. I am 35 years old, so I was not into handguns or politics when the statment was made. The way I see it is, if a GUN MANUFACTOR was against the gun rights of idividuals and basically against the 2nd admendment, they probably would not be a very sucessfull GUN MANUFACTOR. Ruger seems to be slightly sucessfull, so I can safely assume they do not have a problem with my gun rights. So I buy Rugers. They seem to offer the best product in my favorite category (revolvers), so I buy more Rugers than anything else.
helitack32f1 posted
.
Lots of people will say that a silly limit is how a gun "looks" and "feel". I happen to think how a gun performs is the best indicator of quality.
I have a Kel Tec PF9 with easily 2500 or so rounds through it in the last 9 months I have owned it. It goes bang every time, handle everything I feed it (including reloads), and is very accurate. I will say it is not very pretty to look at and the blueing has worn ALOT, but it works and works well. To me that is a quailty firearm. I also have a Kel Tec P3AT. It only has 200 rounds but performs perfectly.
, I can agree with you that they are crude looking. But, in my opinion, no other company in their price range offers nearly as good of a product. I assume one reason they can offer the product at the price they do is because they do not put emphasis on looks. My next firearm is probably going to be a kel tec P11. Mainly because I can feel confident that I am going to get a gun that works and works well. It is innovative since I really can't find another double stack 9 that is as small and lightwieght (I guess if I give Ruger a little while that will change
) and best of all I can get one out the door new for $250.....can't beat that.I honestly am not trying to be rude, but you seem to have gone out of your way to slam Kel Tec.
Also I am a huge Ruger Fan. I currently have 12 handguns and 8 are Rugers, but I have to admit the LCP is a P3AT copy. I have no problem with it though. They took Kel Tec's gun and made it look better and added a saftey. It offers a little more for a little more money, but they hardly took a blank sheet of paper when they started it.
And as far as the OP goes. I am 35 years old, so I was not into handguns or politics when the statment was made. The way I see it is, if a GUN MANUFACTOR was against the gun rights of idividuals and basically against the 2nd admendment, they probably would not be a very sucessfull GUN MANUFACTOR. Ruger seems to be slightly sucessfull, so I can safely assume they do not have a problem with my gun rights. So I buy Rugers. They seem to offer the best product in my favorite category (revolvers), so I buy more Rugers than anything else.
Last edited:
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
THR is meant to be a forum for civilized discussion conducted among mature and thoughtful peers. If the best you can do is engage in stupendously overheated rhetoric, perhaps you should do some growing up before choosing to post again.
helitack32f1
Member
Again, prove that, a. it is an absolute copy and b. if it is, that KT didn't give them permission.
And one more thing, If it is a copy is that a reason to shun Ruger when the same people don't shun S&W for even more obvious copying as well as all the companies that make 1911's? Or how about Taurus and the 92 series of guns? I am sure there are many other examples I can give if i look hard enough.
And one more thing, If it is a copy is that a reason to shun Ruger when the same people don't shun S&W for even more obvious copying as well as all the companies that make 1911's? Or how about Taurus and the 92 series of guns? I am sure there are many other examples I can give if i look hard enough.
Last edited:
lilguy
Member
My first gun 40 years ago was a Security Six and latest a LCP, with 5 single actions, 2 mini 14's , a SS Security Six, a 480 Redhawk,a SS Mark target 22 and a 44 Old Army. Next will be SR 556.
He did what he thought he had to do at the time. They are a great company.
He did what he thought he had to do at the time. They are a great company.
GreenSkyy87
Member
May I suggest you try out Hi-Point firearms? Dirt cheap, but they sure run good. If looks and feel don't matter as an indicator of quality to you, then HP makes the best. 
For everybody that says they won't own a ruger because they copy other companies, I assume that the only two brands you own are Colt and Winchester?
The LCP may be similar to the P3AT, but again, they are not the same in the end. IF it were a true copy, ALL parts would interchange. It is not like Ruger took a P3AT and put it in a fancy laser milling futuristic scanner machine, made some changes with the click of a mouse on a super computer, and then started pumping out P3ATs with Rugers name on them. They were inspired by a design that could be improved upon and put R&D on their dime with their ideas to do so. You can bet that if they did in fact "steal" any proprietary information, KT would be all over it. That is how industry in this country works. If it did not, we would not have an eighth of the things we do today. The advancement of computer technology comes to mind. We all would only be able to buy a double cheese burger at McDonalds too, because Burger King's burgers can fit on McDs buns. Must be that they stole the design from them, and McDs should sue. Then comes bicycle companies, auto companies, etc.
In the end, who really cares where a company gets their ideas from? They either make a better product or not. If the "copy" is a better gun and priced well, then you bet your ass I am going to spend my money on that one. I would be silly not to. More choices for the consumer is better for the consumer, no?
jimmyraythomason
Member
Same here. In fact without the AWB of 1994,I would not have bought a Mini-14 AND a Mini-30(not to mention the Bushmaster AR). Two of the best semi-autos I ever owned!
I never said it was an "absolute" copy. There are some minor differences and I pointed them out. It is, however, close enough that the statement "the interior parts are nothing alike" is clearly wrong.
I doubt that Ruger got permission from Keltec, but I suppose it's possible. I hope they did.
I agree that lots of other manufacturers have done similar things. Tangfoglio copied CZ with the Witness, Taurus with S&W and everybody with the 1911. What is a bit unusual in the Ruger / Keltec "homage" is that usually it's a smaller company copying a larger company's product, not the other way around.
Last edited:
helitack32f1
Member
S&W copying the Glock with the Sigma was not a case of a small company copying a bigger company.
Fine. You win.
we are not amused
Member
Gun owners are some of the most prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant people you will ever meet.
If you doubt me, just read some of the non-sense and bile being spouted on this thread.
I guess that means gun owners are just human beings after all, with all the warts, flaws and stupidity that implies.:banghead:
If you doubt me, just read some of the non-sense and bile being spouted on this thread.
I guess that means gun owners are just human beings after all, with all the warts, flaws and stupidity that implies.:banghead:
monet61
Member
With all respect; make up your own mind. Personally I think that cutting yourself off from a firearm that you apparantly like, is a bit like self flagellation. It hurts and gets you nowhere. JMO.
P-32
Member
And S&W had to pay Glock for it.
As I recall when the talk was to limit the mag to 10 rounds, the sale of 1911's went thru the roof. I didn't see that as a bad thing. (The 1911's I mean)
- Status
