Ruger does that every year, it seems. Some of their guns are worth a bit more; others go from a decent gun for a decent price to "No way!" IMO, the standard 10/22 has already crossed the line, and unless there's a new AWB that kills the competition, the Mini-14, even "new and improved" has been pushing it for a long time. 13% MORE? $800 retail will just make the AR more attractive.
USFA, assuming they're not already selling every gun they have the manufacturing capacity to produce, has got to be pretty happy that Ruger is jacking up the New Vaquero's street price ever closer to $600.
Beretta just nudged US prices up. But they have exchange rates to worry about, too.
Of course, $3.60 for Diesel isn't helping American companies keep their costs down, and metals keep going up as worldwide industrialization continues.
Still, a lot of the price of a gun is the value added in manufacturing, not the raw materials or transportation. Steel doesn't cost that much, and modern shipping is pretty efficient. Some of Ruger's prices go up because they think they can get the money they want to charge (there's no reason a 10/22 costs more to produce than a Marlin 60). If they can, then they were right. If not, they'll find out soon enough. Note the frequent dropping of products from their line.
WRT exchange rates, they're a two-edged sword.
If the dollar is high, imports are cheaper in the US and exports are more expensive for foreign buyers. So in the modern global economy, manufacturing migrates out of the US because it's cheaper to make things elsewhere, and because our products become too expensive for others to buy. Unemployment and loss of whole industries are real threats. But the US consumer can buy a lot of stuff for a good price.
If the dollar is low, imports are more expensive in the US and exports from the US become cheaper for others. So it becomes attractive to make things in the US, both because foreign goods are more expensive here, and because foreign buyers want to buy US products when the prices are better. That often means higher employment in the US. The US consumer, however, has to pay more for goods in a global economy when the dollar is low.
The dollar went up, probably a bit too high, because foreign investors were buying US securities. Obviously, money that came to the US to buy mortgage debt and real estate is not happy money now. And little new money is flowing in after it. So more people are exchanging dollars for other currency, driving the dollar's price down. It's not really about what the dollar is "worth" in some abstract sense, any more than a given day's stock price perfectly represents the real value of a publicly traded company.
That's one reason the Gold Standard people want the dollar tied to something tangible and unchanging. However, we had economic problems with that, too, just different ones, as I recall. So I have no idea who is right, or what "third way" might work better.