Ruger AR-15
- Thread starter Gunther
- Start date
- Status
I'm glad some of you see this as a "good" thing in regards to Ruger being more "pro" 2nd Amendment. In some ways, it should certainly help with the whole "common useage" thing when it comes to AR's and black rifles in general.
On the other hand, let me present a less appealing possibility. What happens if Ruger gets a huge government contract on these things?? We've all seen how the Federal Government uses money to essentially "blackmail" the states into doing what it wants. What happens when all these gun companies are effectively "dependent" on government contracts (fed/state/local)?? Whose "side" do you think the companies will take?? Do you think they'll care that much about selling a few thousand of this and a few thousand of that to civilians when it could possibly cost them a HUGE government contract??? So far, we haven't really seen anything like this happen(FN is making Win70's, Colt still makes AR's/1911's for the public), but it seems that the possibility is always there to take advantage of the situation..
On the other hand, let me present a less appealing possibility. What happens if Ruger gets a huge government contract on these things?? We've all seen how the Federal Government uses money to essentially "blackmail" the states into doing what it wants. What happens when all these gun companies are effectively "dependent" on government contracts (fed/state/local)?? Whose "side" do you think the companies will take?? Do you think they'll care that much about selling a few thousand of this and a few thousand of that to civilians when it could possibly cost them a HUGE government contract??? So far, we haven't really seen anything like this happen(FN is making Win70's, Colt still makes AR's/1911's for the public), but it seems that the possibility is always there to take advantage of the situation..
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
But as you say....
I've seen that worry for years, and it's always possible sure.
But honestly even if it happens in this case, it's just Ruger.
There are thousands of other gun makers out there. Ruger tried getting in bed with the government once and it nearly killed them.
Don't underestimate the civilian AR market. It's more than a few thousand rifles that Ruger can sell here if they are smart.
If Ruger wants to pull another bonehead move, let them.
Their loss.
As an aside, I don't see huge government contracts in Ruger's future for this thing. The Mini/AC was attractive to LE because it was cheap, not much else.
No need for personal attacks here. If you like the new rifle, then by all means give Ruger your $2,000. I did not and do not suggest that that choice will somehow make you, or anyone else, a lesser person.
I have used both rifles in the military and am quite familar with them.
I agree that ergonomics, trigger and general accuracy are important. I do not agree that "modularity" has any practical value, at least not for serious use as a service rifle (it may appeal to the ninja commandos).
In my experience, the FN is at least as accurate rifle as the M-16. And of course its 7.62 cartridge is superior for combat purposes.
Neither rifle has a particularly exceptional trigger. Both are reasonably good, and if desired can be improved with tuning.
The ergonomics are pretty much equal. The FN doesn't have a "forward assist", but it doesn't need one either.
Finally, the FN is a sturdier, more reliable rifle than the M-16. It's simply heavier built, and its spring-loaded piston keeps on working after the direct gas system has fouled.
Yes it is. But the FN has had a fully-adjustable gas regulator for almost 60 years. It is by no means the innovative feature that Ruger claims.
I am happy anytime someone brings another choice to our market. I believe Ruger's mistake was to come to this market at such a high price. To me it would be like Rock River unveiling a new bolt action rifle that looks like a 700 in a HS stock at $2000. How many people would go for that when they could get a real 700 in a fancy stock for alot less.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I still don't see why people are saying this is so overpriced.
It has a gas piston system, which adds about $400 to the MSRP of other ARs. It includes full length rails and folding iron sights. It also comes with three rather than two magazines, rail covers, and a Hogue monogrip.
All together these add ons are probably worth about $850, so if this was a regular AR the MSRP would be more like $1200.
The gas piston Bushmaster has a MSRP of $1850. The Ruger is more, but not much more, and comes with a lot of extras.
It has a gas piston system, which adds about $400 to the MSRP of other ARs. It includes full length rails and folding iron sights. It also comes with three rather than two magazines, rail covers, and a Hogue monogrip.
All together these add ons are probably worth about $850, so if this was a regular AR the MSRP would be more like $1200.
The gas piston Bushmaster has a MSRP of $1850. The Ruger is more, but not much more, and comes with a lot of extras.
gvnwst
Member
Its a Ruger. They are not known for having such prices, for what it offers, sure, it is a DECENT price, probably will be at street price, but at MSRP, it is fighting against guns that all are from known AR makers, who make super quaity guns, and who have better features. Better triggers and stocks and barrels for instance.
I do have to say though, this 2 stage gas system looks intresting....wonder it will work how it is suppossed to.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Adding PRICE and adding VALUE are not the same thing.
For most shooters the piston upper doesn't add VALUE. For the piston lovers it is great but for general shooters it doesn't really matter much, at least not yet.
Piston ARs being a relatively rare thing for now it's not a value add.
So in the scheme of things, for real world pricing, you have to leave the cost of the piston upper out of consideration in my opinion.
Now, down the road if the piston turns out to be better once there are large numbers of rifles in use maybe......
Lone_Gunman
Member
I agree, and feel the gas piston system is a questionable improvement. I haven't had problems with my 6920 or Bushmaster jamming up or getting to hot with the usual direct impingement system.
I think when comparing prices you really have to compare it to other gas piston AR's. If you are not in the market for a gas piston AR, then certainly the Ruger isnt the rifle you need to be looking at because you are paying a lot of extra money for a feature you don't want.
I am sort of interested in trying on of these for a couple of reasons. First is the novelty of the gas piston system. Second, it is a Ruger, and I would rather deal with their customer service than about any body elses.
I think Ruger would have been better off to have released a version without the rail system and other add ons, so the MSRP would have been lower. I think a lot of people are thinking "$2000 AR, no way!!!" without looking closely at what the rifle offers.
charlesb_la
Member
Yes that's what a bunch of gun nuts on the internet are saying but when these rifles end up in gun stores in every nook and cranny of the country potential buyers won't care about the MSRP, all that will matter is the price it would cost them to walk out the door with it. Does anyone actually know the MSRP of the last gun you bought?
I think once production ramps up the actual street price will be $1500-$1600 and won't look so bad next to the other rifles on the rack. Some rifles won't have iron sights, some won't have rails, you need extra mags etc. The Ruger will be a turn key solution for many shooters. Many will read about it and know about the quality extras thrown in and will feel secure in buying a Ruger because in 10 years Ruger will still be here pumping out 10/22's and be around to service the rifle.
Their name recognition will carry bunch of weight. Most shooters have been exposed to piston ARs through the gun media but how many actually know anything about LWRC, POF or LMT? Even if they do Ruger's far reaching distribution system will have this rifle out there so people can actually handle the rifle and that will lead to sales. I bought a POF 2 years ago, and love the rifle, but many shooters wouldn't go through what I did to buy it.
If this rifle performs it will sell.
Even if the rifle doesn't set the world on fire it is an important step in redefining the company and that is a good thing for all shooters.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Ruger would've been a lot smarter to start making AKs. There is a big need for a US company to start manufacturing quality AKs since they're banned from importation but, like you posted, the AR market is totally saturated. Not only that, but Ruger is known for making tough, reliable guns that won't break the bank, and the AK was designed to be a tough, reliable gun that wouldn't break the bank. It seems to me that the two would go together like toast and jam.
gvnwst
Member
I agree, but i am not sure how well they would sell till other AKs were banned from importation, the prices a american company would have to charge to make them...
Last edited:
Maverick223
Member
Have to agree with gvn, AKs are still too cheap for a US manufacturer to tool up for and match the current price. Saiga pretty much has the market on new AK weapons and would prove to be stiff competition, as they have been churning them out for decades. Also, who wants a AK that could be recalled at any time? 
I'm not sold on the piston either (but then I'm a pragmatist)-I was listening to a recent Gunfighter Cast podcast (bunch of active Marines, some being range instructors) where they gave some thoughts on piston vs DI. They were discussing what they had seen at the range with both their and other military groups informal testing-think it was the HK compared to their M4s-they reported their M4s were around 1" MOA-the piston ARs were around 4" MOA.
Hey, I don't make the news...I just report it!
gvnwst
Member
Well, my piston rifle will do sub MOA easily, with a better than me shooter, and good ammo. Its all in the design, there are cheap ones, and there are good ones. (cheap not as in price, but design, they are still expensive)
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Unless Saiga has a plant in the U.S., they can't offer AKs with all the goodies (flash supressor, pistol grip, etc.) Ruger could.
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The wild card in a domestic produced AK is the ammo.
Not a lot of domestic x39. For the most part the market is dependent on imported ammo supplies at a low cost.
Wouldn't take much politically to hurt that.
Would be a hard decision to bet a company on something like that. The Mini 30 market hasn't exactly been stellar.
If US ammo makers would step up to the x39 plate maybe but since the round has no LE or gov use here in the states I don't see that happening.
Not a lot of domestic x39. For the most part the market is dependent on imported ammo supplies at a low cost.
Wouldn't take much politically to hurt that.
Would be a hard decision to bet a company on something like that. The Mini 30 market hasn't exactly been stellar.
If US ammo makers would step up to the x39 plate maybe but since the round has no LE or gov use here in the states I don't see that happening.
Maverick223
Member
The piston does hinder accuracy a little, but I have trouble believing 4MOA unless it is a substandard specimen.
I don't believe that the Russians are invading
, but you can easily convert one as long as you meet 922r requirements.Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
If imports of AK ammo were ever banned, they would. However, right now, they couldn't make any money, since the Russians can do it a lot cheaper.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
I'm betting lots of people would pay extra for the convenience of having what they want right out of the box without having to fart around with any stupid thumbhole stocks or U.S. parts requirements. I certainly would.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not sure they could justify adding the capacity. They can't currently keep up with the LE style rounds of 5.56 and .308.
With a nonexistent LE and military market it would be hard to justify tooling up to make x39 for civilians only and produce it in high quantity.
It's all possible of course, but that's my belief as to why gun makers are not interested in pursuing an AK in a major way.
seeker_two
Member
Congratulations, Ruger....you've become as innovative as all the other AR makers out there....
+1 on a domestic AK or Dragunov-style rifle...esp. in calibers like .223, .243, .260, and .308.....or refine the Mini platform to take the .308 family like they once proposed.....
+1 on a domestic AK or Dragunov-style rifle...esp. in calibers like .223, .243, .260, and .308.....or refine the Mini platform to take the .308 family like they once proposed.....
Maverick223
Member
The AKs I will leave to Ivan (unless imports are banned) but a domestic Dragunov would be great. I could deal with .308, but I rather like the original in 7.62R.
Kind of Blued
Member
As if it is a huge burden gone unused? Cops probably don't need the last 1/2" of shoelace on their shoes either.
Maverick223
Member
rofl
- Status