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

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GEM

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
11,314
Location
WNY
That's it. There was a thread about popular CCW revolvers. One must admit that the forte of the modern revolver for carry is the pocket gun. Certainly something like a Model 66 is a fine gun but if you go to the belt - there are many better and reliable semis.

For hunting - sure a revolver is great.

So with SW and Taurus making a buck with J frame sized guns and Charter back in the business and old man Ruger at the great range in the sky - why doesn't Ruger come up with a J frame size gun?

Come out with the long desired reasonable 9mm snubby or something fun. They are just stuck in the past.
 
As far as Ruger goes, I think they are sticking to the their largest revolver market. Cowboy Action Shooting revolvers. Why compete in a market with others who have already established market dominance when your main source of income is something else.

The have the SP101, it is smaller, built like a tank, but weights alot too. My guess is that they are staying more true to their largest customer base, where people buy at least two guns, then use the heck out them so the need more/parts.

In the carry market, someone will buy one, and then only use is sparingly for range practice most of their life. Why compete with Smith, Taurus, and Charter who are already competing against the smaller autos of Glock, Springfield, Kahr, Kimber, etc.....

Ruger probablys makes more money on Mark IIIs 10-22s and Vaqueros each than all of their other produts combined.

Just ARperson's hubby's opinion.
 
I think I read their sales were down. Might be wrong about that. But Ford emphasized trucks and oops. That's what I was thinking.
 
My guess is that either their castings don't hold up as well as S&W's forged frames below a certain size, or building smaller and more lightweight guns that break more than once every other lifetime doesn't fit with the profit margins of their service model.
 
The snubby (2 1/4" barrel) SP101 is only 25 oz, similar to some of the Colt D-frames. While not a pocket gun, it's still easily portable and concealable, plus it handles full power .357 loads with relative ease, and with much more comfort than even the all-steel J-frames. It actually fits my hand better than any of the J-frames, too, so for me its good traits outweigh the ways in which it fails to imitate the J-frames.
 
My guess is that either their castings don't hold up as well as S&W's forged frames below a certain size, or building smaller and more lightweight guns that break more than once every other lifetime doesn't fit with the profit margins of their service model.
Click to expand...

Another alternative is that consistent with Bill Ruger's statement (quoted above) and the statement of one of the top management (made at the 2004 Shot Show if memory serves), Ruger has no real interest in entering the CCW market any more than they have.
 
It is funny and I laugh everytime I hear it, but I don't believe Bill Ruger said it.

Meanwhile, if Ruger won't build a pocket revolver maybe you can talk Remington or Marlin or Savage into it. They haven't been interested in that market either.

John
 
Well there is hope.
On the auto side they have came out with the P345.
About the size of a 1911 commander.
I know that is not small but it is slimmer then the other Ruger pistols.
 
It is funny and I laugh everytime I hear it, but I don't believe Bill Ruger said it.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. The quote originated with me at TFL. Tamara found it amusing and repeated it. Her huge popularity caused it to spread until it took on a life of its own. I'd love to claim full credit for putting those words in Bill Ruger's mouth as payback for what he did say, but w/o Tamara a few people would have laffed and it would have been forgotten.
 
Ruger has always designed and built firearms as though they are the only gun manufacturer in the world ... the concept of competing with other manufacturers seems foreign to them (and to be fair, there's times its worked for them).
 
I think Ruger might do well to enter this market. I think people would flock to an S&W alternative (that didn't have the "Lock", Sorry, someone had to start this again!!!) that's made in the USA. I also think they need to consider a 1911 variant.

The one other glaring flaw in their lineup has to do with shotguns. I think they would do well with a moderately priced semi-auto (think $500-$650 range). A pump would be nice, but Remington and Mossberg already have that market saturated.
 
Maybe the other manufacturers should try competing with Ruger on guns that will take heavy loads and hard use and last a lifetime doing it.
 
Maybe the other manufacturers should try competing with Ruger on guns that will take heavy loads and hard use and last a lifetime doing it.
Click to expand...
+1

This is Ruger's forte, building heavy-duty pistols that can handle just about anything a handloader can put them through, and come out grinning. :cool:

Ruger would be smart to stick with what they do best. Why get into a market that S&W and Taurus have pretty much covered?
 
The snubby (2 1/4" barrel) SP101 is only 25 oz, similar to some of the Colt D-frames. While not a pocket gun, it's still easily portable and concealable, plus it handles full power .357 loads with relative ease, and with much more comfort than even the all-steel J-frames. It actually fits my hand better than any of the J-frames, too, so for me its good traits outweigh the ways in which it fails to imitate the J-frames.
Click to expand...

+1 on this.

i actually like the SP101 for carry. i don't want my gun to weigh half an ounce, and i like having an exposed hammer [though ruger provides a DAO]. and it's plenty portable enough for IWB, OWB, or even some pockets. and i want to be able to put hot, heavy .357 through my carry gun on a regular basis. even if i was gonna go S&W for carry [which i well might], i'd go with a 60 rather than all the snazzy featherweight shrouded, bobbed, hidden hammer stuff that dominates the market these days.

just an opinion...YMMV
 
Bill Ruger Sr. was well aware of his competition... and he beat most of them into the ground. He started with a small operation making a .22 pistol, in a factory located in a former commercial garage. Then within his lifetime he built it into a major operation, and didn’t use one cent of borrowed money too do it.

His game plan was simple. Build guns that looked like favored styles, but improve them, and make the better. After doing so, sell them for slightly less then the (then) big names were asking. As for the strength of his revolvers, they are more then equal to anything else on the market. Most reloading handbooks have “Ruger only” loads. There is no such thing as “S&W only” loads, or “Colt’s only” loads.

He wasn’t particularly interested in the CCW pocket gun market, but said if he changed his mind it would be an autoloader, not a revolver. In a conversation I had with him on this subject he pointed out that in his opinion the thickness of the revolver’s cylinder worked against pocket carry. A pistol was thinner, could be made lighter, and would turn a better profit – even with a lower retail price.

Because of their reliability I still prefer a revolver for this mission, but I’ll also admit that his arguments were right. He will be remembered as one of the outstanding gun designers of the 20th century.
 
I think it's smart business not to compete with the yardstick of pocket guns...taurus and charter probably don't sell a 1/10th of the snubs of Smith, combined...maybe Ruger saw there was a market for a more shootable small revolver and decided to build it like a Ruger...a bit heavy but will take a pounding...I own a 442 for carry and when I looked for a more shootable snub, I first decided on the Ruger.
 
The continued flogging of a dead man over his minor role in bringing about a dead law is something bordering on pathological.:rolleyes:

I have an S&W M38 and a 638. I've been thinking I'd rather have an SP-101 so I could actually enjoy practice.
 
"and he beat most of them into the ground."

Not only that, he did it without borrowing any money. Amazing cash flow management.


No honest man needs more than ten canned hams.

John
 
Ruger could probably put out lightweight revolvers with titanium frames without developing too much new technology. They are a leader in titanium investment casting for a number of industries. I, for one, would be interested in a SP101 with a titanium frame. But I agree with many of the above posters – it doesn’t seem to fit with their business model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
SW J frame
Replies
7
Views
577
bulbboy
B
WestKentucky
  • Locked
Heavy barrel J frame?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
J-Bar
J-Bar
A
  • Locked
Taurus 617 size/concealability?
Replies
6
Views
4K
Syd
S
Z
  • Locked
Taurus 605 = S&W J frame?
Replies
7
Views
7K
Stasher1
S
N
  • Locked
Alphabet Soup (Revolver Frames)
Replies
10
Views
880
Mike Irwin
M
Back
Top