New CEO of Ruger

Status
Not open for further replies.
An S&W marketing and sales connection inspires little confidence but the following does:

Mr. Killoy has served as Vice President of Sales and Marketing since November 2006. During this time, he has been instrumental in executing the successful launch of many new products and in managing the Company's strong sales growth.

Given recent decisions and offerings at Ruger, I have high hopes.
 
Change is not necessarily a bad thing. If Bill Ruger was still in charge, there would be no standard capacity magazines, maybe no SR series rifles, and perhaps we would have seen the end of civilian sales of the Mini-14/30 series of rifles also.
 
He will be the new Chief Operating Officer, NOT Chief Executive Officer... Mike Fifer is still CEO. ;)

Musical executives with little attachment to the business seldom work out well for the serious user.

He is getting promoted from within, not exactly a musical executive. And he has been with Ruger since 2006.

If Bill Ruger was still in charge, there would be no standard capacity magazines

That always used to bug me so much :fire: glad they changed their policy.
 
Interesting.

Makes no difference to me, though. I couldn't care less if Ruger flourishes or founders, they will never see another dime out of my piggybank.
 
If Bill Ruger was still in charge, there would be no standard capacity magazines, maybe no SR series rifles, and perhaps we would have seen the end of civilian sales of the Mini-14/30 series of rifles also.
I can't see him ending the Mini series, but I agree with the rest of your list. I also think that's just the beginning of the list.

While Bill Ruger Sr. was in charge, the company tended to shy away from making any firearms that were obviously oriented toward concealed carry. The only gun in the lineup that could be characterized as appealing to that market was the SP101 which was a revolver, not a semi-auto. All their semi-autos tended to the large end of the scale.

After there was no longer a Ruger in power at the company, we started seeing the consumer drive the product line. If Bill Sr. was still in charge, we wouldn't have seen the LCP, the LC9, LC380, SR40C, or the SR9C. There's a good chance we might not have gotten the LCR series either, although that's harder to say since he had allowed a compact revolver into the line with the SP101.
 
Bill Ruger Sr. was definitely a man that the gun industry and gun buying public left behind. Change is good in some cases.
 
Bill Ruger is dead. How many gun companies have changed hands into jumbled up mixes of companies that allow products to suffer? I can't tell who owns S&W, Walther, Sig, Colt, and Umarex. Lots of gun companies have sold out to the all powerful dollar, yet Ruger has left behind the man that sold them out and have continued to make darn fine guns at a great price.

They have introduced many people to shooting through their .22lrs. They make quality concealed carry affordable to everyone. They have made a big impact in the revolver world, with high quality guns at a good price. They also are one of the few companies that offer handguns of all types, rifles of all types, and shotguns of all types.

Yet some people still hold a grudge on a dead guy with nothing to do with the company. Most of these people will not bat an eye at another gun company changing hands and merging for the sake of the bottom line
 
Would you elaborate, please?

Well, aside from that fact that they've been steadily increasing prices while still producing mediocre firearms......

Back in 2006, I had recently purchased an SP101 .32 Mag. The .327 Federal came out shortly after, and I called Ruger to order a cylinder. They flat out refused to sell. Of course, they were happy to retrofit my gun to the tune of nearly what I paid for it.

Refuse to sell me a part for your product, you lose my business forever. I told the rep that just before I hung up. 7 years and some $22k spent on guns later, I have kept my word.

They also lost whatever shred of respect I might have still had for them when they started ripping of Kel-Tec designs.
 
Ruger doesn't sell parts like that, company policy, and if you've developed such a hatred of the outfit based solely on that, you're very short-sighted.
Denis
 
MachIVshooter, do you realize that no company that makes a revolver will sell cylinders? S&W, Taurus, NAA, Colt, CVA, Dan Wesson... None of these companies will sell you a cylinder. The libertarian in me doesn't like it either, but if you own a revolver, that's a fact of life. Incidentally almost all manufacturers of firearms will not sell parts which must be fitted, with the exception of barrels. If I'm off on this someone please call me on it.
 
I called Ruger to order a cylinder. They flat out refused to sell. Of course, they were happy to retrofit my gun to the tune of nearly what I paid for it.
A couple of things.

1. They did NOT flat out refuse to sell it. They refused to send it to you directly. They were, as you say, happy to sell it to you, but only after fitting it to the gun to insure that it was safe and operating properly.

2. You didn't need to call them to find out that they weren't going to send a cylinder to you directly. The parts list in the manual clearly designates which parts they will send directly to the owner and which parts must be fitted at the factory.
Refuse to sell me a part for your product, you lose my business forever.
You've just been lucky with other gun companies so far. Most, if not all of them that I'm aware of have at least a few parts that must be fitted at the factory.

It's your prerogative to withhold your business from any company you choose, so I'm not trying to change your mind. Just pointing out that you could have come up with a much better/more justifiable reason than the one you're currently using.
 
Considering Ruger's sales numbers, I think the number of people that still hold old grudges towards Bill are by far a minority. I own a few Ruger products, and I have been pleased with them. I see no reason not to do business with them. YMMV
 
I have no problem with the company beyond the fact that make almost no products that interest me. I'll probably never get rid of my Standard Model/Mk I but I probably won't buy another Ruger .22 pistol just due to my needs changing. Probably would take an SP-101, though.

The one truly classic, market-leading design for me is the 10/22. There's literally no other .22 rifle I'd rather have if I could only have one.:)
 
I have been pleased by the quality of their current production (Flattop .44 Special and SR9c), and with their product line-up. I look forward to seeing what new products Ruger will be bringing to the marketplace.
 
I've sworn off Rugers ever since their lawyer-scented 'loaded chamber indicator' on a Mk.III nearly blew my thumb off.

I'll stick with makers who don't insist on magazine safeties, LCI's and billboards announcing, "Gun will fire if trigger pulled!!!' all over them while I still can, thanks.


Larry
 
None of these companies will sell you a cylinder. The libertarian in me doesn't like it either, but if you own a revolver, that's a fact of life.

Even as an outright Libertarian, I have no problem with this. Their company, their rules. They could refuse to sell you grips if they wanted to. It's not like the Government is restricting sales of cylinders.

If Mr. Killoy has been in charge of sales and marketing at Ruger since 2006, he's been doing a good job. Hopefully someone equally talented replaces him in the sales position.
 
Alright Killjoy; I want a new line of products over the next four years. I want to see a 10mm semi-auto with a five inch barre, either as a 1911 or SR, or both (please both). Do a run of 9mm Sp101s, not too many I get profit margins and all. Also do a K-Frame size 9mm revolver as well, I'm ok with moonclips.

Okay I'm good. Get it done.
 
I reckon the first thing can do is offer non-locked guns for those not living in the commie states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top