Ruger throws in the towel

[mormonsniper]

Speaking of Rifles, Ruger & Stock Ownership

I'd like to see Ruger compete and produce a semi auto in .308. Box magazine.
20 round minimum. There had been a shortage of semi auto's in 308 until recently. The demand driven I think by the "presumed" shortfall of the 5.56 in combat. RRA will have a new semi-auto available in the Summer. Very nice.

Speaking of owning stock in Ruger or any firearms company, when you buy stock in the company YOU become part owner. YOU can make a difference. Many together can make a REAL difference. $7 a share is not to expensive for this crowd. If you do your due diligence and purchase the stock make your concerns known to the company. They WILL listen. Many who work for Ruger own stock along with you. If you do what is right for the company business can be good. It takes many stockholders to make that difference.
I have seen it work. Ruger makes some pretty good firearms. They target a certain market though. If that is an issue with stockholders then they should make their concerns known to THEIR company. Gripe all you like. Until you OWN the company or a part of it... your singular complaint is simply that.
Singular.

I own a couple of Rugers. An old Redhawk and a couple of 10/22s. I bought the Redhawk when I was overseas (Germany) and didn't pay any attention to politics, 1980, 1981 or 1982. I think the Redhawk had just come out and I got one at the Rod & Gun Club.... anyway.

Buy some stock. Invest in the company... send money & suggestions.
Strength in numbers. The more numbers, the more money, the stronger the company. There are a lot of shooting enthusiasts here. Got some ideas?
Tell your company.

 

[Boats]

Mmmmm. Beretta EBR. I keep forgetting about the RX4.

 

[thatguy]

I bought an AR15 brand new in 1978 and it came with a 5 round magazine. Many gun companies don't offer high capacity (defined as over 10 before someone starts screaming "15 is standard") magazines or other combat-oriented products (including some ammo varieties) to commercial customers. This may be partly due to liability concerns or political considerations. You may criticize them if you like.

What made Bill Ruger worse than the other manufacturers was that he personally appeared before Congress, and on national television testified in favor of the AWB. The president of Colt wasn't there, nor was the president of any other gun company. It was Bill Ruger all by himself. Ruger sold 30 round mags before 1994 but stopped when he made a deal to support the AWB.

 

[Russ]

Bill Ruger was trying to head off freaking nut cases in what, 1993? Who had the Presidency then? By Jimminy it was the most anti gun President in history so far, Billious Clintoon. The House and Sentate were also controlled by freaks of nature like Diane Fineswine and people like John Conyers who I believe hates this country. These buffoons were pushing heavily for a 5 round limt and I think they would have gotten it.

The elected Democrats don't like guns, not even the famous John Dingell whom they always throw out as being pro-gun. He may be pro single shot but not much. They all mainly vote lockstep with the party leaders.

The 10 round thing and BIll Ruger's comments were unfortunate but he may well have headed off much worse. The 9mm market gone overnight except for very small single stack mags that hold 5 rounds.

As soon as the Dems get back into power on a national level, they will ban "assault weapons" and again limit mag capacity. That is what they do.

So, go out there and vote for the Democrats and see a repeat of all the lawsuits and restrictions placed on guns by the Klintoon administration. I pass. I don't care what Bill Ruger had to say to save 10 round mags but I promise, Di Fi wanted 5 and I think she could have easily prevailed at the time. She is still there.

Those laws are still in effect in some states like California. Nothing over 10 rounds can be sold new. I just want to thank all you Democrat voters for giving these people the chance to bring an industry to it's knees.

Hey, Hillary will be running and maybe she will get Di Fi for VP. Why don't you geniuses put the blame where it belongs. It wasn't Ruger, it was the stupid amoral party that a majority voted for. Vote for a Democrat on a statewide or national basis and you may as well kiss your guns goodbye.

They don't talk much about it now because they are out of power. Wait until they get it back. If you blame Bill Ruger for the 10 round mag you are truly stupid.

 

[itgoesboom]

Bill Ruger was trying to head off freaking nut cases in what, 1993? Who had the Presidency then? By Jimminy it was the most anti gun President in history so far, Billious Clintoon. The House and Sentate were also controlled by freaks of nature like Diane Fineswine and people like John Conyers who I believe hates this country. These buffoons were pushing heavily for a 5 round limt and I think they would have gotten it.

Actually, George H.W. Bush was President when Bill Ruger Sr. sent his infamous letter to congress. That was 1989.

Nobody had pushed for a magazine limit until Ruger brought it up.

I.G.B.

 

[cbsbyte]

Bill Ruger was trying to head off freaking nut cases in what, 1993? Who had the Presidency then? By Jimminy it was the most anti gun President in history so far, Billious Clintoon. The House and Sentate were also controlled by freaks of nature like Diane Fineswine and people like John Conyers who I believe hates this country. These buffoons were pushing heavily for a 5 round limt and I think they would have gotten it.
The elected Democrats don't like guns, not even the famous John Dingell whom they always throw out as being pro-gun. He may be pro single shot but not much. They all mainly vote lockstep with the party leaders.

The 10 round thing and BIll Ruger's comments were unfortunate but he may well have headed off much worse. The 9mm market gone overnight except for very small single stack mags that hold 5 rounds.

As soon as the Dems get back into power on a national level, they will ban "assault weapons" and again limit mag capacity. That is what they do.

So, go out there and vote for the Democrats and see a repeat of all the lawsuits and restrictions placed on guns by the Klintoon administration. I pass. I don't care what Bill Ruger had to say to save 10 round mags but I promise, Di Fi wanted 5 and I think she could have easily prevailed at the time. She is still there.

Those laws are still in effect in some states like California. Nothing over 10 rounds can be sold new. I just want to thank all you Democrat voters for giving these people the chance to bring an industry to it's knees.

Hey, Hillary will be running and maybe she will get Di Fi for VP. Why don't you geniuses put the blame where it belongs. It wasn't Ruger, it was the stupid amoral party that a majority voted for. Vote for a Democrat on a statewide or national basis and you may as well kiss your guns goodbye.

They don't talk much about it now because they are out of power. Wait until they get it back. If you blame Bill Ruger for the 10 round mag you are truly stupid.

Even with the Democrat ranting you do make a good point that Bill Ruger was not behind the AWB or any gun control. Anti gunners sit on both sides of the fence. Yes, he personally should have told Feinstein to go sit on a 40rd mag but he was planning on trying to remain in business instead of being sued into extinction. For some reason American gun manufactures, more so than Foregin manufactures are heavley attacked by anti-gunners. Strum Ruger is the largest gun manufacture in the country, both by size and sales and do to their promince in the market are targeted on a reguler bases, by state and city lawsuits. Unlike S&W or Colt which both rolled over and played dead for the antis. He countined to make and imporve their product. The only other companies that did that where forgien.

 

[Russ]

I was born, raised and lived a long time in California. It used to be a two party state. Not always the most conservative I admit, but a 2 party State.

The Democrats have controllled it for some time now, actually a long time occupying nearly 2/3 of both houses and now a RINO Governator.

I stand corrected as to when Bill Ruger made his comments. However, I stand behind what I believe the reason was, in that the Democrat government of California is now ( and has been for some time) totally anti gun.

I lived here when Diane Feinstien was on the City Council in San Francisco. She became Mayor and eventually a US Senator based on the assasnation of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. I grant you she probably saw the carnage a gun can cause first hand while most of us have not and that is something she will always have to deal with.

What I know is that the "Crime Bill". limiting such dastardly implements with over 10 rounds, was passed when Clinton was in the White House and the Democratic Party controlled both houses.

There is my endorsment of the Democratic Party. Vote Democrat and lose your guns!

You seem to think it unreasonable I would blast the Democrat party. In many statespn the local and regional level teh Democrats are much the same as Republicans and not anti gun for the most part.

Once elected to the National level. they change, forced or coerced to vote the party line. Do you want what happened under Clinton to be repeated?

Lawsuits, Boycotts, BS --- I don't want to repeat it so I will never vote for a Democrat until they explicity say they are for the 2A. no if ands or buts. I think hell will freeze over first if there is such a place.

 

[itgoesboom]

I stand corrected. What I know is that the "Crime Bill" limiting such dastardly implements was passed when Clinton was in the White House and the Dems controlled both houses.

Yeah, that is true.

When Bill Ruger wrote the letter, and his comments later on as well, he was partially trying to prevent his little rifle (mini-14) from being banned, because the anti's were planning on banning rifles by name.

He felt that he could achieve 2 major things by working with the anti's:

1. Hurt Glock. The Glock 17 held 17 rounds, while the Ruger pistols held 15. His proposal was for a ban of magazines holding more than 15. That would bring Glock down, and make the playing field level.

2. He also felt that by helping the anti's, maybe they would leave him alone.

Ofcourse, we know what happens when people try to appease people like that.

I.G.B.

 

[c_yeager]

They're also not doing anything terribly exciting, otherwise that graph would tend to be moving positively in the Y axis more dramatically than the charts show.

Just because a company is in the black doesn't mean it's a good investment.

Ruger isnt a growth stock, but you should take a look at the kind of divident they pay before you decide its a bad investment. They are one of those rare companies that actually sends their profit right back to the owners.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The Board of Directors could stop the dividend any time they wanted though, and they have admitted their earnings have not really supported the dividend. Then you are stuck with just the stock price, which is actually flat at best, and only a little above is 52 week low.

I would not be too keen on owing Ruger stock, and this seems to be the opinon of Wall Street analysts also.

 

[NineseveN]

I think I will only buy Beretta from now on. Not only are they a conglomerate that makes just about everything under the sun except an EBR, they fight lawsuits even after lesser companies would have long given up, or agreed in principle with the government to sell us out, or something more excusable than having once supported an expired magazine ban.

They simply tell the antis to get stuffed.

Beretta is about as pure as it gets for a company that sells handguns as part of its product line.

They do have an EBR on the way.

 

[Mississippi Rifleman]

MississippiRifleman said:


Peter B. Lewis is the reason I won't do business with Progressive.
In the 2004 election he riveled Soros in support of antiBush groups.
He is a big liberal. So I won't support his businesses. *if I can help it*

EVEN THOUGH... he is a major supporter of the legalization of cannibus
*Which happens to be a position I favor*

I also won't do business with GEICO (government employees insurance company) because of the underhanded move they made back when the laser radar gun first hit the market...
The first company to market a laser radar gun was in financial trouble, they bought them out with a condition that the first 200 radar guns they made they got. They then proceeded to distribute those laser radar guns to law enforcment agencies throughout the nation for free. Encouraging the issuing of speeding tickets in an effort to support increases in ins. premiums.
Pretty slimey if you ask me. *I don't recall the issue but I learned that from a Car & Driver article years ago.*

Thanks for the info. I appreciate you sharing the knowledge. I'm moving to USAA insurance in June.

 

[Derby FALs]

Even with the Democrat ranting you do make a good point that Bill Ruger was not behind the AWB or any gun control. Anti gunners sit on both sides of the fence. Yes, he personally should have told Feinstein to go sit on a 40rd mag but he was planning on trying to remain in business instead of being sued into extinction. For some reason American gun manufactures, more so than Foregin manufactures are heavley attacked by anti-gunners. Strum Ruger is the largest gun manufacture in the country, both by size and sales and do to their promince in the market are targeted on a reguler bases, by state and city lawsuits. Unlike S&W or Colt which both rolled over and played dead for the antis. He countined to make and imporve their product. The only other companies that did that where forgien.

46 Repugs voted for the AWB. Without their support it never would have reached the Senate.

 

[AZ Jeff]

All this Ruger bashing needs to be put in perspective.

1. There are two "Rugers" being bashed here: William Ruger Sr, the man, and Sturm, Ruger, & Co, the company.
2. Ruger, Sr., foolishly attempted to mollify antigun forces (and gain market share) in this country with his personal suggestions of magazine capacity limitations. For this, he should be villified, rightly so.
3. Ruger the company followed their founders personal opinion, and apparently has instituted a policy of limiting centerfire rifle magazine sales to the general public to ones of 5 rounds capacity or less. It does not appear to be a WRITTEN stated policy, but is one in practice, and certainly plays into the hands of the antigun forces.
4. Before anyone attacks Ruger the company for this practice, and how it goes against the RKBA, one must remember that this is the policy of other firearms manufacturers in this country as well. Singling out Ruger for critcism and boycott makes no sense, unless you do this for ALL MAKERS who have such a policy. (Colt, for one, has had just such a policy since the 1970's.)

So.....for all of you who are boycotting Ruger due to the current (unwritten) policy against selling 10+ round rifle magazines, I ask a question:

Are you also criticizing and boycotting ALL OTHER firearms makers who refuse to sell 10+ round magazines with their rifles?

If you are not, your behavior is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Derby FALs]

Are you also criticizing and boycotting ALL OTHER firearms makers who refuse to sell 10+ round magazines with their rifles?

When aware of it.

In a move sure to anger consumers, Colt has sent a letter to its distributors stating that it will only sell high-capacity magazines to law enforcement and the government despite the sunset of the law on Sept. 13, 2004. In the same statement, dated Sept. 14, 2004, Colt states it will continue to sell Match Target Rifles in present configuration to the public, and that law enforcement semi-automatic rifles will only be sold to law enforcement and the government.

The purported reason is that "manufacturing capacity" dictates Colt serve its LE and government customers first. While that is a laudable goal, it is hard for me to understand how "manufacturing capacity" prevents spinning a flash hider on a rifle barrel and leaving the lugs on the barrel. In addition, it is hard to understand how it helps production capacity to supply the nine-round magazine instead of a 20- or 30-round magazine with each rifle.

 

[NineseveN]

When aware of it.

In a move sure to anger consumers, Colt has sent a letter to its distributors stating that it will only sell high-capacity magazines to law enforcement and the government despite the sunset of the law on Sept. 13, 2004. In the same statement, dated Sept. 14, 2004, Colt states it will continue to sell Match Target Rifles in present configuration to the public, and that law enforcement semi-automatic rifles will only be sold to law enforcement and the government.

The purported reason is that "manufacturing capacity" dictates Colt serve its LE and government customers first. While that is a laudable goal, it is hard for me to understand how "manufacturing capacity" prevents spinning a flash hider on a rifle barrel and leaving the lugs on the barrel. In addition, it is hard to understand how it helps production capacity to supply the nine-round magazine instead of a 20- or 30-round magazine with each rifle.

Exactly.

 

[gunsmith]

more then ten

Actually, someone who trains and is a decent shot shouldn't need more than 10 rounds.....

thats all well and good in Indiana, but in my old new york neighborhood 30 to hundreds of thugs could congregate and beat/kill people.
evrery halloween and july 4th the village becomes mayhem central.
only ten rounds will be a death penalty in that situation

 

[Derby FALs]

Actually, someone who trains and is a decent shot shouldn't need more than 10 rounds.....

In the immortal words of John Ross "To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. "

 

[Yotecallr]

???

How do you read into this statement on their website ref Wm. Ruger's retirement?
The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as turnover of members of the Board of Directors, officers, and other key personnel, market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, attorneys general and other governmental entities, and the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.

 

[mormonsniper]

Now thats what I'm talking about

Mmmmm. Beretta EBR. I keep forgetting about the RX4.

I really like the Beretta RX4 but an email I received from them stated that it wasn't going to be produced... Maybe if we bought some stock or emailed them enough.... Make it and we will buy! I have a 92 FS and a CX4. I would buy another Beretta. Barrel looks funny though....