powwowell
Member
Elmer's stance makes a lot more sense to me than DenaliPark's does.
Why be angry with Ruger because they add more value for your money?
Why be angry with Ruger because they add more value for your money?
New Ruger
- Thread starter DPris
- Start date
- Status
Looks an awful lot like the... ahem.. Taurus... to me... Just sayin.. Personally, I would prefer the Taurus....
A gun is a gun and Ruger puts out "mostly" good products. Anything that helps bring more people into gun ownership is fine by me.. If there are more people out there willing to purchase, carry, shoot...etc this particular gun than other options then bravo to Ruger.
Now the obvious knock on em... next they will come out with a 30 round 22 mag that is a completely "original" design.
Also, where is my 6 shot LCR in 327 mag?!!!
A gun is a gun and Ruger puts out "mostly" good products. Anything that helps bring more people into gun ownership is fine by me.. If there are more people out there willing to purchase, carry, shoot...etc this particular gun than other options then bravo to Ruger.
Now the obvious knock on em... next they will come out with a 30 round 22 mag that is a completely "original" design.
Also, where is my 6 shot LCR in 327 mag?!!!
Last edited:
People here act as if Ruger's marketing is an affront to them personally. Sorry, but their marketing is designed to sell guns. Nothing more. You can choose to take offense, or you can let it roll off your back like so much other marketing out there, and decide whether you want the thing on it's merits. If you don't, fine. Bill Ruger is dead. The company is making strides in the citizen CCW market, where it has been absent, and people still bitch moan and complain.
They're a solid American company that produces very nice firearms. <deleted>
Last edited by a moderator:
A infinitesimally tiny manufacturer, trying to use the situation to gain PR favor, (when it's likely purely finance driven), wouldn't qualify as a major manufacturer.
Many wouldn't consider the modifications adding value if they're not needed in their state. If the modifications are objectionable enough to impact sales in those states, I'm confident Ruger would make a separate model.
Prediction: New model firearms from other manufacturers coming out will incorporate the same features needed to win CA approval.
rellascout
member
Other larger companies are looking at moving away from CA. The Dan Wesson end of CZ, who does not produce a lot of 1911s but is still part of a big company, did not submit any of the new Valor line to CA for approval. IIRC. They continue to produce the CBOB for that market because it has already passed by they have cut off CA from the rest of the new and improved line.
In the end each company needs to make a business decision. Is the CA market worth the hassle, extra cost and the chance that by adding CA necessary features they will hurt sales in other states. With the CCW laws in CA I personally think that building a CCW intended gun without the necessary CA features would not hurt sales signifigantly. YMMV
In the end each company needs to make a business decision. Is the CA market worth the hassle, extra cost and the chance that by adding CA necessary features they will hurt sales in other states. With the CCW laws in CA I personally think that building a CCW intended gun without the necessary CA features would not hurt sales signifigantly. YMMV
I like it. I've been in the market for another carry option and have been looking at a compact single stack 40 or 9mm.
Keltec PF-9 - too ugly
Kahr PM-9/40 - a bit too expensive
You may be asking what an ugly gun has to do with saving your life. If there were two guns that did the same thing, why not choose the one that is less ugly?
Keltec PF-9 - too ugly
Kahr PM-9/40 - a bit too expensive
You may be asking what an ugly gun has to do with saving your life. If there were two guns that did the same thing, why not choose the one that is less ugly?
Janos Dracwlya
Member
If and when I decide to get a pocket 9mm, I'll take a look at the Ruger. If its DAO action is like the one on my Taurus TCP, the safety would make me a little more comfortable. I know that the primary safety is between your ears, but I'd like something for when it's there in my pocket (in a good pocket holster, but anyway).
I also like loaded chamber indicators and find them helpful.
Now, since I've got the TCP, maybe I'll just buy the 709, but I'll at least look at the Ruger.
I also like loaded chamber indicators and find them helpful.
Now, since I've got the TCP, maybe I'll just buy the 709, but I'll at least look at the Ruger.
DenaliPark
member
Umm, you're exactly what Prescott is looking for in a propspective gun owner, exactly!
DenaliPark
member
I would never say that Ruger makes very nice pistols, decent to very nice, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Pistols are something that they are far from very nice with...What they have found is a niche, one where that particular segment of the buying public is not to demanding, and obviously very forgiving....
Let me know when that happens..... It must be nice to be let in on these high level corporate contemplations.
They must feel the hundreds of guns they sell in the rest of the country will be sufficient for them.
Exactly.
Which is why you will see all the major manufacturers submit guns for CA, whether or not they have to make a separate version.
Don't quit your day job to try your hand at being a gun company CEO.
CA continues to have a robust firearms market, and because not everyone has given up on the state, great strides are being made in regards to gun laws and CCW policies. Because of legal challenges mounted by state gun groups, supported by many outside the state, several counties have become defacto "shall issue" counties, and more are coming along.
One of the biggest mistakes made by national gun rights organizations in the past was to write CA off. If CA sinks, so does the rest of the country......... eventually. Fight them here or fight them on your lawn, take your choice.
rellascout
member
Gotta ask what makes your speculation valid but other peoples invalid? You believe that this is the case. Others here do not. I agree CA has a good sized gun market but I disagree that it is large enough to support separate models.
I also think that it may backfire on companies that cater to the CA DOJ as people pass on guns with too many lawyer features. Time will tell who is right. At this point we are both speculating.
My "speculation" isn't more valid.
Again, tell me which major manufacturers have abandoned the CA market, or are planning to? The speculation is all yours.
The release of this gun would be a clue that they're not going to.
Perhaps. Might be why this one was made to be acceptable in CA.
Stay tuned for other manufacturers to continue to do likewise.
Again, I'd point to this introduction as a clue to what other manufacturers will be doing.
But stay tuned. Again thanks to support from people all around the country, there are more challenges coming to stupid CA gun laws. Perhaps soon, it will be a moot point.
rellascout
member
Already answered. CZ owns Dan Wesson. They are leaving the CA market. They are produced only about 300 CBOB guns for the CA market and have discontinued it. They are not submitting any new guns.
Is CZ not a major manufacturer?
It is debatable if Ruger is a working for or against the Gun owners in this country. I am not a Ruger hater but Ruger has put its profits ahead of the rights of gun owners in this country before. You see their compliance in order to sell guns in CA as a positive thing. Many others see it as yet another in a long line of capitulations. To me I am indifferent as to whether it is good or bad. I simply do not like or need the features like internal locks, loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects.
Last edited:
Stringfellow
Member
This thread went from informative and interesting to insipid and silly. I am pretty suspicious of folks who need to bring "communists" or "California" into an argument. Let alone into a discussion about the quality of a pistol. It isn't quite "High Road"...
Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people. If people didn't do stupid **** and then want to sue someone for it, we wouldn't have all these lawyer features. But you know what--in just about every other situation in life, safety features are good things. With firearms or anything else in life, its inevitable that people will do stupid **** then look for someone else to blame.
If you don't like safeties, don't use them. For me, its a selling point.
For the love all that is good, can anyone contribute any insight of value here?
Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people. If people didn't do stupid **** and then want to sue someone for it, we wouldn't have all these lawyer features. But you know what--in just about every other situation in life, safety features are good things. With firearms or anything else in life, its inevitable that people will do stupid **** then look for someone else to blame.
If you don't like safeties, don't use them. For me, its a selling point.
For the love all that is good, can anyone contribute any insight of value here?
rellascout
member
How do you not use a chamber loaded indicator? Please instruct me how I can remove an internal lock? While your at it how do I remove the mag disconnect on this gun? If you like them that is cool. I however think it is valid not to buy a gun with features you do not like or need. None of the "safety features" are going to prevent a ND if you are not using the "safety" between your ears. 99% of the time when a ND happens it is that safety that has failed.
Ruger created a lot of hype but did not deliver IMHO. It might sell due to price point but I do not see any revolutionary about the design.
Do to its size its too close to other guns already on the market. I personally think its too large for pocket carry. There are better options for belt carry. It will not be replacing my J frame as my pocket gun. YMMV
PS: Cussing disguised by **** is not really the high road is it?
I hope for Rugers sake it goes off without a hitch.
Last edited:
Stringfellow
Member
Why would someone disable a loaded chamber indicator? If it has ANY material detrimental effect on the pistol, I would like to know.
Internal locks? Don't you have have to actually affirmatively lock them before they are locked? So if you never lock the internal lock it will never be locked?
Mag safety? Well that's a matter of philosophy. If you are against them, I guess that is a downside. If you are for them, then that's another plus.
"Disguising" cuss words? THAT was the takeaway from my post? (Rellascout gets a pass for that one because he typically adds more good insight in a single post than some folks do all year.)
On that note, I agree that it seems bigger than I thought it would. It looks top heavy. It is on my short list for a CCW, but I am eager to see how it would compare to a Kahr.
We can't forget: we are enthusiasts as readers of a pistol forum. We are likely a big chunk of the buying population. But statistically not likely the majority. Your average American consumer will likely not have heard of Kahr, but would have heard of Ruger.
Internal locks? Don't you have have to actually affirmatively lock them before they are locked? So if you never lock the internal lock it will never be locked?
Mag safety? Well that's a matter of philosophy. If you are against them, I guess that is a downside. If you are for them, then that's another plus.
"Disguising" cuss words? THAT was the takeaway from my post? (Rellascout gets a pass for that one because he typically adds more good insight in a single post than some folks do all year.)
On that note, I agree that it seems bigger than I thought it would. It looks top heavy. It is on my short list for a CCW, but I am eager to see how it would compare to a Kahr.
We can't forget: we are enthusiasts as readers of a pistol forum. We are likely a big chunk of the buying population. But statistically not likely the majority. Your average American consumer will likely not have heard of Kahr, but would have heard of Ruger.
rellascout
member
That is so true. We might be the most vocal but we are not the majority. You can see that everytime you are in a gun shop.
My issue with the additional features is that its another thing that can go wrong/break.
I am in between on the size. I am not a fan of pocket rockets. I shoot a 38 SP instead of .357 Mag. out of J frames. I think that the mini 9mms are hotter then most people think or admit. A bit more bulk is not a bad thing but with this new Ruger I think it will be too big for the pocket. If that was the target i think it might be off a bit.
Sorry about the disguising comment. It was a little snippy. LOL
Last edited:
CZ is indeed a major manufacturer, Even if their US market share is likely fairly small.
But Dan Wesson?
According to the most recent (2008), ATF Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report, CZ USA manufactured (not sold), a total of 2557 pistols in their NY plant where the Dan Wesson is made, in one of the best years ever for firearm sales. So selling 300 in CA would make perfect sense, since that is approximately the ratio to population. In other words, California likely bought just as many, (or just as few), as any other state.
With those kind of numbers. they're not leaving the CA market, they're likely leaving the firearms market.
As far as the imported actual CZ pistols, they have 18 different models, that CZ submitted for testing, and have been approved for sale and listed on the current California roster.
You have an agenda. That's fine. But trying to skew facts to support it, just makes you look silly.
Caliper_Mi
Member
LCI could easily enough be removed if desired - just a pin, spring and the indicator itself. If it sticks up too high, the tab that contacts the cartridge could be filed down a bit. I used to dislike the idea until I got a SR9c recently. I think of it as an easy visual/tactile check that the gun is loaded before carrying. Guess that's not what they intended it for..
Internal locks are another part to potentially break and because of what they are, breakage potentially means a dead gun. Without seeing the design, one can't be sure that it won't mess up even if never used. Hopefully easily removable.
Mag disconnect - not welcome on a CCW or SD gun! Hopefully Ruger made this one like on their SR series, where it can be removed in under a minute with only a paper clip as a tool.
Fastcast
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 874
I personally think its too large for pocket carry.
I agree....The LCP in a Desantis holster pretty much fills my pocket, front or back. I can't imagine trying to stuff that in my pocket and don't forget it's almost double the weight of the LCP.
If I'm putting it on my belt, it won't be a jumbo LCP.....lol
rellascout
member
What you asked was is there a major gun manufacturer leaving the CA market. The answer is yes. CZ is a large company and made the decision to not longer manufacture pistols in their DW line for the CA market.
You clearly do not know about Dan Wesson. They have moved to the level of semi-custom pistols. They do not need the mass volume that Ruger does because they are not on a volume model. They have also brought back revolvers under the DW name. They are growing in a smart growth manner.
To my knowledge DW sold every pistol they made this year. I personally am not a fan of the direction they are going because I think they have moved to too high a price point but if you actually think they are going out of business you know less about the firearms market than I thought you did.
Not every gun manufacturer is like Ruger. Not every company needs to sell a million guns to turn a profit. Ruger has to sell to CA because they cannot afford to leave anything on the table because they are not making enough on each pistol. Mass production of firearms require selling to the masses.
I hope you and others who like Ruger and the looks of the LC9 get everything they want from it and Ruger. I do however think you need to realize that others see this as a miss and we have valid points and are entitled to our opinion.
- Status
