Now that Bill Ruger is dead, what guns do you hope they will make?

[denfoote]

Ruger Bricks

What's the big deal?

The deal, whether it's big or not, is that none of the companies you listed are in the business of making handguns!! Ruger is, believe it or not!! Like I said, I'm a Ruger fan!! I'm one of those Ruger customers that is a little ticked off that the company didn't make a product that fit my need!!
I've tried hoofing around the P95 and 97!! It's like carrying a brick on my hip and my hips are not in the best of shape, these days!!! If I'm trying to conceal a brick, I would rather it be a small brick...like a Glock 26, which is what I do carry BTW!!! !!!

 

[cracked butt]

Not too many complaints here.

10/22- it would be nice to have reliable hicaps for these, but there isn't much alternatives in cheap box magazine fed .22 autoloaders on the market unless you consider the Remington 597 as an alternative


Mini-14 without hicaps? Never was interested in one of these anyhow- they look like a cheap kids toy when you consider that you can get a GI M1 for nearly the same price, and if I had a need for a gun that shots patterns, I would buy one of Ruger's shotguns instead. I wouldn't trade a good AR-15 for a whole pile of these.

Ruger centerfire Pistols? Once again, hicap mags wouldn't be a selling point for me with these either. Life is way too short to be using an ugly gun. These guns make even Glocks look like calender girls, and Berettas and Sigs look like Playboy centerfolds

Wheelguns? Down own any yet, but used to shoot a single six and a Blackhawk alot, and loved them, would certainly buy a Ruger before a Smith.

Shotguns? Its a tossup between a Ruger Red Label and a Browning Citori as to which shotgun I'll buy next.

MKII? Have one and love it. I really don't see any advantage of having hi cap mags for these.

Bill Ruger's attitude does bother me somewhat, but I have little interest in most of the company's semiautos anyhow.

 

[BHPshooter]

Just how is a company NOT making a certain type of gun that YOU think they should be making restricting our Second Amendment rights.


What kind of convoluted logic is that?

Exactly whose posts are you reading? When did I say that them not making a 45-shot 20mm pistol was restricting anyone's rights? (here's a clue: I didn't.)

Here, again is my point: Bill Ruger pushed to get the AWB passed. By doing this, along with his "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds" bullcrap, he was betraying the trust of the eighty million gunowners that made him the fat-cat that he was.

Do you understand what it meant when he said that no honest citizen needs a high-capacity firearm? He was reinforcing the anti's arguments that anyone with a high capacity pistol or EBR is a violent cretin.

Bill Ruger took the money that he got from we gunowners and used it to fight for the passage of AWB. Can you deny that?

I'm not bashing Ruger firearms. I like Ruger firearms a lot -- but I will continue NOT owning one until they show that they're changing their tune.



Let me try this a different way: What if WE -- the gunowners -- could get someone "behind enemy lines," like HCI or Brady Center, to take anti-gunners money and use it to protect gun rights and oppose gun control, all while continually having antis pouring their money into the organization. What if?

That's exactly what happened, but reverse. Ruger vocally opposed the very crowd that made him rich and helped to restrict what guns they could own or what accessories for them you could legally buy.

To buy a gun from Ruger (then) was to basically contribute to the Brady Center for Prevention of Handgun violence -- one of the most vehemently anti-gun lobbying groups. Bill Ruger may be dead, but we don't have any indication that Ruger has changed their thinking. Why is it that no one cares about that?

Do you LIKE funding gun control?

Wes

 

[Grunt]

I don't remember Ruger's comments about no honest man needing more than 10 rounds but I do remember the letter he wrote to each congressman back in 1989 asking for a total outright ban (no grandfather clause here) of ANY magazine over 15 rounds! His reason was that the Glock 17 with it's 17 round magazine capacity was cutting into his P-85 sales and cheaper AK rifles from overseas were cutting into his Mini-14 sales. His bottom line for supporting gun control was to be able to sell his guns (P-series handguns only had 15 round magazines and Ruger didn't sell the 20 and 30 round Mini-14 magaznies to citizens so there's no harm to Ruger's product line) while banning the higher capacity magazines that allowed his competition to be as popular as they are. In other words, he sold us out to boost his own profit margin, pure and simple!
Now do I own Ruger firearms? Yes, I own both a Mk-II and a 10/22. Would I buy another Ruger? Yes, I'd like to get my hands on a P-90. Will I buy a NEW Ruger? Not only no but HELL NO!!! After crazy Bill went insane in 1989, I have never bought a new Ruger since then. If I buy another Ruger, I'll buy them used since I know not a dime will go to Ruger from my pocket book! Now since crazy Bill checked out, if Ruger changes their policy to being more pro-gun than their stance has been since 1989, I may reconsider buying a new Ruger but until that day, I'll stick to other gun makers products or buy used Rugers.

 

[Boats]

Maybe Bill Ruger should have said, "No decent shot needs more than ten rounds at a time."

 

[Grunt]

Maybe Ruger should have said nothing and be thought a fool than to open his mouth and remove all doubts.

 

[GEM]

Since GWB seez he will sign the AWB renewal, that removes the scarlet AWB from Ruger guns. Since we have gun political gurus apologizing all over the place for Bush, doesn't it now hold for Ruger?

I'll buy their products if they work for me. I have a 10/22 that is a fine gun.

I do wish they would go into the slim semiauto pistol realm. But Glock won't either.

Wait, Kahr does but then his old man is a moonie - not gun PC.

I might like a higher cap Mini-14 (as they refuse to make even 10 round mags) - but I bought an AR. That's that.

 

[Grunt]

And that's why I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primary and Buchannan during the general election that fall. GWB signs an AWB renewal and I'll have no problem voting 3rd party again (since I'm not really big into just staying home).

 

[horge]

Hello, and thank you for an interesting discussion

Originally posted by fumegator
No, he is indeed a traitor. We, the 80,000,000 gun owners, made his business a success. What does he do to say thanks? He pushes for the piecemeal destruction of the very rights that made him rich.
Yeah, that's his right to do that... but it's pretty stupid.

Hi, fumegator
If it's 'his right to do that', how can 'doing that' be betraying anyone?
We may strongly disagree with his opinion, and even more with his choice to air it at all, and at the worst possible time... and I do disagree rather strongly (even as unaffected by it as this foreigner is).

I just differ with you (and I hope you can respect it) that a manufacturer/merchant owes so much more to the customer than good product and good service; to wit, that purchasing a Ruger handgun obliges Ruger's adherence to a common 2A-interpretation or KBA philosophy. I will apologize if Bill Ruger ever went on record as promoting something you could 'sign on to' AND THEN turned around and reversed himself publicly, to the detriment of others, RKBA-wise. Now, that might be a betrayal... or if you like, 'treason', though people can and do change their minds on all things.

Originally posted by fumegator
I never said that he had to tow my line, I said that I will not give my money to a company who will use it to fight my rights (while posing as an ally).

Originally posted by Feanaro
We DO allow for differences, which is exactly why I, or fumegator or you can (choose to) NOT buy from Ruger. If I or anyone else disagrees with their policy, the founder's policy, his history or anything else then I can avoid their products. He dug his grave(Pun intended) and his company still suffers for it.

Excellent points that (more or less) we can agree on.
Don't like? Then don't buy.

I guess a problem arises when we perceive that we are buying more than the product and any warrantied services, and again, if prior to his unfortunate public comments, Bill Ruger Sr. had gone on record with something totally other (meaning more pro-KBA by your standards)...
then yes, there would be a betrayal.

There seems to be a perception that freedom of speech means you are free from the CONSEQUENCES of your speech. This is most certainly not true.

Yes, but the consequences do not have to include false accusation.
I could accuse Bill Ruger of disregarding the damage to public KBA rights, in pursuit of survival or profit --and there's plenty of comment preceding on just that-- but 'accusing Bill Ruger Sr. of treason necessarily implies that he had a prior allegiance to betray.

Really, what I'm saying is that
we may need to reconsider exactly what it is we're PAYING FOR in a firearm purchase.
In all likelihood, we've merely an exchange of cash for product and service, without any sort of allegiance thrown in as a bonus.

Again, thanks for your considered thoughts.

horge

 

[JohnBT]

"The deal, whether it's big or not, is that none of the companies you listed are in the business of making handguns!!"

And Ruger doesn't make little handguns. What's the big deal? Kahr doesn't make big handguns. Colt doesn't make many handguns. Smith and Wesson doesn't make many blue handguns. And Kel-tec doesn't make big guns or revolvers.

I'll leave the social engineering to the politicians.

John

 

[natedog]

Ruger seems to get a lot of flack for "selling out", but manyignore the fact that many of major American gun manufactuers have "sold out" at one point or another.

Remington puts those stupid tabs on the magazine tubes of 870s...obviously you only NEED 4 rounds. I believe they also put an internal lock in 700s.

Marlin pulled the Camp Carbines off the market because they deemed them to be "non-sporting".

Smith and Wesson and the "agreement".

Springfield 1911s have an internal lock built in.

Winchester helped push the 1968 Gun Control Act. Later, when many parts of the '68 GCA were repealed in '86, a clause was attached that ended the registration of new machine guns. Winchester is indirectly responsible for ending the registration of new machine guns.

Colt put non-standard pins in their AR-15s, a sear blocker, and removed the bayonet lugs from their rifles before the '94 AWB.


See where I'm going with this? If you're going to boycott Ruger, then that's fine, but don't you think you should boycott all these other "anti-gun" companies? Or is that too inconvenient?

 

[BHPshooter]

If it's 'his right to do that', how can 'doing that' be betraying anyone?

Easy -- say, for a moment, that I am someone like Julius Rosenberg. I work with all kinds of government secrets, like the atom bomb. Now, I have a right to say whatever I want -- even leaking government secrets. However, by exercising that right, I become a traitor.

Bill Ruger was made rich by US! WE are the ones that made his business a success, yet he works against us. Additionally, he never bitched about selling us mere civilians hi-cap mags until his sales began to decline. At that point, he tried to ban all high-capacity firearms so that he could have a bigger bite of the market.

This is a couple things: It is stupid, it is greedy, and it is fundamentally wrong.

It is stupid because, as a firearms manufacturer, he sped up the "rolling ball" to eventual banning of all firearms, which would mean the probable end of his business;
It is greedy not only because he wanted another big piece of the wealth NOW, he wanted to shut out all of the other firearms manufacturers out there while he was at it;
And it is fundamentally wrong because our second amendment freedoms are the basis of what made him successful. As a person who directly profits from this freedom, yet who turns against it, is quite literally a traitor... look it up.

Smith and Wesson and the "agreement".
...
Springfield 1911s have an internal lock built in.
...
Colt put non-standard pins in their AR-15s, a sear blocker, and removed the bayonet lugs from their rifles before the '94 AWB.
...
See where I'm going with this? If you're going to boycott Ruger, then that's fine, but don't you think you should boycott all these other "anti-gun" companies? Or is that too inconvenient?

I felt the same way about S&W, until their ownership changed, and they started changing their tune. They have tried to "make right" what they've done wrong, albeit quietly, but I can accept that.

Putting locks on guns is a completely different topic. By putting locks in the guns, although many don't like it (I'm among them), they pretty much achieve a win-win scenario for the pro-gun folks. It gives them much more defensibility in court, which does 2 things: 1) It helps ensure that they're around making guns in the future. 2) It prevents frivolous lawsuits, which saves them money, which keeps prices lower for us, the consumers.

So Colt changed the AR-15 before the ban. There are many reasons they could have done that, but that is completely inconsequential to this discussion. What WOULD be relevant would be if Colt were pushing for an extension of the AWB, or the confiscation of all privately owned firearms, etc. When Colt decides to go utterly insane, a la Bill Ruger, let me know.

Why is this all so hard to get? It's one thing for a company to obey the law, it's quite another to support, push for, and insist upon restrictive gun legislation. Every gun company did the former, only Ruger and S&W did the latter.

I take my gun rights seriously, so I don't appreciate your "or is this too inconvenient" attitude. When Springfield, Colt, FN, Taurus, Mossberg, et al, decide to push for the shredding of my rights, I'll speak against them in the same fashion.

Wes

 

[horge]

Hello again, Wes

Originally posted by fumegator
Easy -- say, for a moment, that I am someone like Julius Rosenberg. I work with all kinds of government secrets, like the atom bomb. Now, I have a right to say whatever I want -- even leaking government secrets. However, by exercising that right, I become a traitor.

People who work on secret government projects are normally made to sign non-disclosure agreements, and thus there is a real pledge or allegiance to be broken. Furthermore, there is the patriotic duty --manifested by a common pledge of allegiance to country/flag-- to protect the nation from harm, as might be consequenced by divulging government secrets.

Neither of these --an explicit agreement and an implicit verbal pledge-- seem to couch Bill Ruger Sr.'s putative betrayal. From what I've seen on this thread, the late Mr. Ruger is being criticized for 2 things:

1. Bill Ruger Sr. had a somewhat skewed take on your 2A, and applied it towards just what sort of firearms his company would manufacture and market.

2. Bill Ruger Sr. had a somewhat skewed take on your 2A, and made it public at the worst possible time, apparently for reasons of profit and (in attempted compromise with a restrictive government) business survival... all to the detriment of gun owners (customers or not, of Sturm, Ruger & Co.).

In the first, I can see no betrayal. The company was under no obligation to manufacture this or that firearm: their call, and they reap the profit or loss thereby. In the second, there is claim of hurt done to pro-RKBA causes. Narrowing the view to RKBA politics, Bill Ruger Sr. seemed to me not a traitor, but simply an opponent. Again, there has to be an agreement or allegiance broken, for mere opposition to cross over into treason.

Bill Ruger was made rich by US! WE are the ones that made his business a success, yet he works against us.

In buying a firearm and service policy.
You get exactly what you pay for, and very little else.
He received your money, yes. You received a firearm and any warranties.
End of transaction.
A pledge to work with you (rather than against you) on any cause doesn't seem to be part of such deal.

I do get what you are saying, Wes,
and I do appreciate the discussion thus far, but perhaps we may have to simply agree to disagree: in this case it is merely over the line between treason and opposition.


Be well,

horge

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Actually the Sara Brady Special----P345 is a very nice gun---I looked one over a couple weeks ago and it will probably be my next purchase(unless something else happens to catch my eye).

I want a .45----and the 1911 just doesn't do it---mainly because of the single action----and what good is a pistol that need to be immediately sent to the smith to make it "right"??? Had a Sig .45---I was unimpressed and dumped it right away.

The Ruger .45's are generally accurate----go bang every time---and are priced right----what's not to like??

 

[BlkHawk73]

Ruger doesn't make this and Ruger doesn't make that Waaah! With the large number of manufacturers producing small carry guns does Ruger really need to enter that marketnow with so many already established models on the market?
Like said earleir, Ruger has such a large catalog to keep in production, they cannot even keep current models available 100%. Add to this thier limited editions - which outnumber some other companies regualr models - and it really puts pressure on production lines. Tiny lightwight models just aren't a niche they have decided to be involved in. Why should they? They concentrate on supplying super strong models at an affordable price. I don't see many other companies making their products that can handle the loads Rugers can. You want a flashy piece to show off, buy a Smith. Want a carry pun, buy a Smith or taurus or Khar or baby Glock. Want a gun that'll handle pretty much anything and last, buy a Ruger. Don't like something about the man that ran Ruger, fine that's your choice. Condemming the Ruger catalog, is also. Whatever position you take, Ruger has become one of the most recognized names in firearms and the largest firearms manufacturer in the US. Must be doin' someying right.
I really don't care either way. I like 'em and buy 'em with no hesitations. The less you buy the better chance another lucky person has and getting it.


Some people :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Domino]

Ruger stuff

Maybe Ruger doesn't make the cool and stylish weapons like HK and Kel-Tec (that I happen to like I might add) but they do make some damn fine revolvers and shotguns. Ruger is not HK, plain and simple. Ruger makes great quality arms for the AMERICAN CONSUMER not the crazed militant (me) who wants state-of-the-art stuff. Anything that Bill Ruger did to help his Company survive I would consider OK since his company is the pretty much the only American Company to actually make their weapons for the average American Joe. Props to Bill Ruger and may he R.I.P.

 

[RickH]

Not that it has anything to do with Bills passing, I'd like a Mark II type gun in 9mm.

 

[standingbear]

An all steel 1911 type that is double action and a wide body frame to accept 10 shot 45 acp mags...one with the frame rails running all the way forward like the sig made guns.....so they dont rattle and are more accurate.a carbine that accepts sten or greasegun mags....

 

[Marshall]

Hopefully now he is dead,

He is.


Seriously now, Chevorlet, why won't they make a Mustang? Them son's a bi**h's. I buy there stuff, I'm entitled! Oh hey, maybe I could just buy a Ford Mustang?

 

[denfoote]

Not that it has anything to do with Bills passing, I'd like a Mark II type gun in 9mm.

Your wish is my command, grasshopper!!

"POOF"!!!
It's called the Luger!!!
I have one!!!

 

[azrael]

lmao denfoote

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Back to the original question, my Ruger wish list is topped by a well-designed, improved Mini 14 with a sturdy folding stock and available 30-round mags that work as well as most Ruger factory mags. The improvements need not be anything dramatic--just the basic mods owners have been doing for years. If Ruger did this, I'd probably buy two of them, one in .223 caliber, and one in .308, which would be available in my fantasy world.

I'd also like to see folding stocks for the PC carbines, and to see Ruger offer the carbines in .45 ACP and 10mm.

Last, I'd like to see a compact 10mm autoloader, something quite a bit smaller than the new 345.