The post Bill Ruger, Ruger handgun era

[1911 guy]

Ruger firearms were always well built, reliable and accurate (even the Number One if you played with shimming the fore end and handguard).

I honestly think their problem now is doing decades of catch-up in market share as well as trying to keep pace with design advancements that they were in no way prepared to manufacture.

Impossible to say Bill Ruger is not responsible for a lot of that, but whatever his failings, they are not mine to judge. He apparently knew how to market enough to keep a company going solidly for decades.

 

[19-3Ben]

Hint: He's dead. Like really, really dead. If you have a beef with his politics, you'll have to hold onto that for a while yet. Maybe you can discuss it with him in the afterlife. Meanwhile, the company is not the man and even if you aren't strong enough to forgive HIM, you could get over it with all the people who AREN'T him who are in charge over at SR&Co, now.

ABSOLUTELY +1. To quote myself from post #5:

Bill must be spinning in his grave. I'd bet if we got some copper wire ole' Bill is spinning fast enough that we could make a generator out of him that could power the entirety of Manhattan.

It's a very very VERY deferent company now than it was 20 years ago. Not being able to get over this is like still holding a grudge against Mitsubishi for building Zeros for the Japanese in WW2.

And as long as I'm at it, Jim K hit the nail square on the head about why things are the way they are.

 

[MCgunner]

But today the market represented by the gentleman sportsman has declined and, whether anyone likes it or not, the market is in self-defense, carry guns, and "modern sporting rifles".

IOW, the market is "tackticool".....and self defense. While I do own carry weapons and appreciate all the new guns in that market, gun companies market guns for the "bug out bag" now days and sell 'em like breakfast tacos in south Texas. I'm afraid that leaves me behind. I'm a hunter. I'm old Bill's target market. Though I do like breakfast tacos. Damn, now I'm hungry.

 

[bannockburn]

I can remember 15 years ago or so, while looking for 10/22 and a Single Six, that it seemed like the quality of Ruger's products had slipped quite a bit. I passed on a lot of guns that I felt were poorly assembled and finished, with readily apparent mechanical and cosmetic issues going on with them. A couple of years ago I got a stainless Vaquero and a blued Flattop Blackhawk that were extremely well built, both in their overall appearance and performance. The metal polishing and bluing on the Blackhawk was outstanding and rivalled the quality of most older S&W and Colt revolvers. I definitely think Ruger quality is back for the most part (I especially like all the new products geared towards CCW customers), and hopefully is here to stay for awhile.

 

[Sam1911]

While I do own carry weapons and appreciate all the new guns in that market, gun companies market guns for the "bug out bag" now days and sell 'em like breakfast tacos in south Texas. I'm afraid that leaves me behind. I'm a hunter. I'm old Bill's target market.

You are still part of ONE OF Ruger's target markets, and they still make guns for you. Just not ALL their guns for you. That should be a good thing, I think.

It isn't like since they make the SR9 pistol and the SR-556 rifle you shouldn't buy a Hawkeye rifle for your next Elk season.

 

[marv]

I presently have eleven Ruger handguns and a 10-22. Got my first one in Texas in '53. Swapped a Winchester M90 for a new Ruger Standard Model. Hindsight tells me that was not a shrewd move.

 

[ugaarguy]

But, since old Bill passed on to the great gun range in the sky, Ruger seems to be catering more to the concealed carry market. This is a good thing, but for they seemed to have dropped some of their safety emphasis by coming out with a lot of Glock style striker fired stuff with doohickeys on the trigger. I cannot STAND safe action for a carry gun. So, those are out for me.

You're ignoring that unlike Glocks, all Ruger SR series pistols come with a frame mounted manual thumb safety.

So, where does that leave current handguns?

The Speed / Service / Security Six were all discontinued in 1988, twelve years before Bill Ruger Sr's death. They were dropped in favor of the GP100 that was introduced 3 years earlier. The rest of the metal revolver lineup is still in production. They were all in production during BR Sr's lifetime, except for the SRH Alaskan and the SRH in .480 Ruger.

To that Ruger has added the LCR plastic / metal hybrid frame lightweight revolver family. They're still 5 shot DA revolvers that are just a little smaller than the SP-101. Are they really that different in function and use than if Ruger had just made an aluminum frame SP-101?

So, revolver wise Ruger has only added models rather than replaced models.

Their semi-auto center fire handguns are a different story. The P series wasn't selling, and if a product doesn't sell it can't be profitable. Ruger obviously wants to stay in the semi-auto handgun market, so rather just discontinuing the P series line they replaced it with the SR series.

While all that was going on over several years they added the LCP, and then the LC9. Is a pair of small concealed hammer DAO pistols with a plastic frame really that crazy?

Last, Ruger added a 1911 type pistol. It's the semi-auto analogue to the Vaquero and Blackhawk. That seems pretty traditional to me.

In semi-auto rimfires the Ruger MKx series still going strong and they added the SR-22 to compliment the new center-fire line.

 

[Rodentman]

I have several Rugers including a Service Six from 1976, one of the first guns I bought. Runs good as new. I like shooting the MKIII but the re-assembly, well you know. The 10/22 is fiddly as well but I have replaced everything except the bbl and receiver.

 

[MCgunner]

You are still part of ONE OF Ruger's target markets, and they still make guns for you. Just not ALL their guns for you. That should be a good thing, I think.

It isn't like since they make the SR9 pistol and the SR-556 rifle you shouldn't buy a Hawkeye rifle for your next Elk season.

Yeah, they've dropped some of my faves. The KP90DC will forever be my favorite semi auto, decocker DA, super accurate, super reliable, almost points itself, feeds anything, and in .45ACP. It's only 33 ounces, not TOO bad on the belt OWB. It's a little bulky, not too bad IMHO under a loose long tail shirt. The P90s are no longer, but I can live with that, have mine.

The one gun that I wish I could get to replace my stolen one is a stainless steel Old Army. That gun was just FANTASTIC, accurate, strong, and I washed it in the dish washer. I'm afraid to do that with the blued steel one I found for $97.50 at a gun shop in Victoria shortly after my stainless one got ripped off. The blued one shoots just as good, is just as strong, just wish I had a stainless one. The used ones are getting expensive on Gun Broker. I may find one used some day in a gun shop, not likely, but you never know. I know where a useds blued one is now, but it's one HELL of a lot more than $97.50.

I mean, I totally understand WHY Ruger dropped the gun. I've heard it said they never made a profit on the thing, was one of old Bill's pets, he loved the thing. I somehow doubt the truth in the no profit thing, but I'm quite sure it didn't sell all THAT well because of the minuscule size of the cap and ball market and the thing was never cheap compared to the Italian reproductions. The ROA was a niche gun for a very small niche, guys who wanted the absolute BEST shooting production cap an ball revolver regardless of any authenticity. That's why I had one and have one now.

But, I have a very good shooting 5.5" Remington 58 made by Pietta. I'd also like a short barreled Vaquero style ROA, but this gun desire is pretty satisfied by the Pietta. Still, I dream of that old stainless ROA sometimes. The guy that stole it probably didn't even know what it was. He came in the bedroom and that one and 2 other firearms were on the top shelf in the bedroom closet. Well, now, my guns are locked up and I've moved out of that dumpy town.

 

[Blue Brick]

Only old Ruger’s here......

 

[Blue Brick]

The P series wasn't selling

Better check that….P89 and P95 were hot sellers.

 

[Fireforger]

Bill Ruger was a pompous, vulgar, disrespectful man, and that has nothing to do with his politics. Lost all respect for him and his products after reading a few interviews the main line gun magazines had with him. In fact, looking back, out of the several hundred guns I've owned, new and used, I've had to send 5 guns back to the manufacturer. Two were new Rugers, and one a used Ruger that should not have malfunctioned. I sent back a new rifle TWICE, the last time just told them to keep it and that I was done with them. I'm a pleasant guy, believe it or not, but the customer service was deplorable and they just wore me out. Even my local GS was mildly shocked at the way they acted. I've since banished Rugers from my collection, save one my dad gave me, but it will go soon enough.

So, that said, let me say something nice and positive about Rugers and their new products, with which I have good familiarity:

 

[jeepmor]

I own about 4 rugers and have had decent luck. The LCP 380 went back for a trigger issue and it runs fine now. My others are two rifles, and they both shoot well. One has their two stage trigger and I really like it. The other, a hunting rifle, had an arguably poor trigger, but a fluff and buff brought that around. Considering how easy this was to fix, I'm a bit disappointed they don't spec a smoother finish on the mating surface. I tried dry firing several hundred times to see if it would improve over time with use, and it didn't, so I fixed it after some net digging her on THR.

I also have a ruger single six that I bought at a pawn shop and it looks like it was someone's red headed step-truck gun. But it shoots great and works well.

I can't complain too much about Ruger, but I'm also thinking I won't be shopping for another anytime soon as my tastes have now exceeded their offerings.

As a former equipment/manufacturing engineer, I can say that the people on the manufacturing line are the biggest part of the problem. I've seen lots of "let it slide and keep running" attitudes out of manufacturing techs in my days having been one and then having directed them.

This is far and away the biggest hurdle to exceptional quality. I came from semiconductors where specs are ridiculously tight, and you need to follow them. I think the current problem with Ruger's quality lies within management's inability to properly address it. It goes like this, Safety, Quality, Output, in that order. When safety and quality are met, output takes care of itself. However, I've also seen this tampered with mightily by the production managers who focus more on numbers than quality. This problem needs to be addressed. And it's a tough one too.

I recall many times having issues with defects and having to go train all shifts of people on the process. When they know eyes are upon them, they do stellar work, no defects. As soon as I turn my back, here come the defects. This is why I say it's a cultural issue.

Defects and reworks (recalls for repair) cost the company extra money. There needs to be a balance as defects still come in even when employees are all on board. But you have to monitor them carefully with things like statistical process control and what have you. I know Ruger has this as it's common in manufacturing. It's getting the teams to respond to the charts properly that makes the difference between a world class manufacturer and a mediocre one. I'd still put Ruger in world class, but not the top of the list by any stretch.

Considering their price points, I don't think they are too far off of where they should be. But if I'm going to spend extra money on a pistol or rifle. I will spend that extra $100-$200 on a firearm of higher quality. And, as stated by several already, firearms need to be looked at individually, not as a collective. All manufacturers have had, and continue to have, quality issues. Except for maybe some high end H&H offerings. But when you pay nearly as much for a gun as a house, I get it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The only Rugers I've had were built before 1990. Still have one and they were both high quality. I wouldn't buy a Ruger today, just too many production shortcuts like MIM and polymer. They aren't the only ones doing that but I don't buy those other guns either. MIM and polymer has proven to be satisfactory for some parts but I still prefer forged steel or alloy. Given that there are so many used guns out there that don't have MIM or polymer there is no reason to buy a new one. I don't discriminate, I don't want any new Smiths or any number of the new offerings. My favorite time period is 1940-1980 and I just live in the past.

 

[Fiv3r]

I came into Rugers long after Bill's passing. My first handgun was an SR-9, and it was a very good gun. It did have some barrel peening, which was an issue for the initial run, and I sold it off toward a Glock. I moved away from Glock for something else as well.

As I type this, I own 5 Rugers. An SP101 is stuffed in my belt line right this second. My go-to .357s are an older Blackhawk and a brand new Vaquero. My mouse gun of choice is the LCP, and I don't go to the range without my Mkiii. It never leaves my range bag.

I did have an LCR, but I could never shoot it as well as the LCP. It took me stumbling into a good deal on my SP101 to help me realize that I needed a heavy revolver to shoot a snubbie well.

As a non-hunter and someone who carried for defense but doesn't LIVE for it, I really appreciate all of Ruger's products. I'd probably put a Hawkeye on my top 5 list of guns I would like to purchase just because. For the time being, I appreciate a company that makes robust firearms at a price that I can afford.

But I too would love to see a comeback of the Old Army. That thing was a tank and probably the most indestructible cap n ball made

 

[kcofohio]

CoalTrain, which Rugers have MIM. The ones I have and seen are metal chassis drop-ins, not molded into the frame. Or do some consider that all the same?

 

[Ed Ames]

Bill Ruger was a pompous, vulgar, ...

Vulgar? From what little I know about him (he died before my time) he seemed like a stuffed shirt who liked refined "good taste" stuff. Look at his car collection, made up of stuff like this: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/william-ruger/

Anyway....

Sam made the point that Ruger "still" makes guns for their established customer bases even as they branch out. I don't know how valid that is though. They really don't make many guns for me.

I have a use for a .45 convertible revolver and Ruger makes the cheapest/least legally encumbered version I know of (Cimarron makes a nicer looking, but significantly more expensive and hard to find, single action convertibles; S&W Z frames can't be taken into California and I still go back there at times). Beyond that? I wouldn't buy their bolt guns; they all seem meh to me. If I want a single shot rifle I will get one that offers more utility (Encore/H&R to swap barrels) or better appearance (Win 1885 et al). I stepped off the Ruger .22 auto bandwagon with the MkII. I am not in the market for plastic revolvers, can't justify the price of their practical steel DA revolvers, and their large DA revolvers are fugly unless you cut the barrel off. The LCP line I would rather buy from KelTec. As for the SR pistol line, it seems like it is probably good enough to use, but not good enough to be a no-brainer buy decision even when they are among the cheapest guns in the display cases. Their shotguns aren't really that interesting, when they make them.

They used to make a few guns I wanted. Not many, but a few. I bought two ROAs (stainless adjustable 7.5", blued fixed 5.5"), and a .454 Alaskan. I would have bought a MkII but they discontinued it so I got a Buckmark instead. I would have bought a .327 sp101 (since I already have a few .32 revolvers) but I literally never saw one offered for sale in a store before it was discontinued.

 

[MCgunner]

The only Rugers I've had were built before 1990. Still have one and they were both high quality. I wouldn't buy a Ruger today, just too many production shortcuts like MIM and polymer.

Ruger is famous for investment casting, high strength while keeping costs low. To my knowledge, they've never used MIM if that is really a problem. Taurus and Smith and Wesson use MIM for cost reduction purposes, but neither of them use investment casting.

IMHO, polymer has a lot going for it in a carry piece. It isn't expensive like titanium or scandium. It can be very strong stuff. The polymer Ruger uses in the P95 is amazing. It's so strong, the slide rides on polymer frame rails, no need for a sub frame of aluminum like most polymer guns have. I just bought a polymer Taurus revolver, very similar to the Ruger LCR. It appears to be the same polymer or similar to that used in the P95. Amazingly strong and can take the heat. The gun is tight, shoots VERY well. It does use a metal frame encased in the polymer, bolted in with screws to which the barrel is threaded. The polymer just keeps weight down and won't corrode which is a plus in a carry gun.

I have no problem with innovative uses of materials. I'm old, but I'm not stodgy, fixed in my ways, and bone headed to the degree that I cannot see good in some innovation.

Why I started this thread is all the chatter in other threads that Ruger has dropped the ball on QC AND customer service. I think whom ever it was that said the current RUSH on the gun market probably has a good point, that 120 percent of capacity production runs is bound to falter now and then. I hope that is all it is, if indeed Ruger is dropping the ball a bit. I hope it's not something more systemic. Since old Bill passed, I'm not sure who is running the ship or their reputation, for that matter. My confidence in Ruger firearms has been shaken a bit, lately.

 

[Ed Ames]

On just the quality front: the last 10/22 I handled was a 50th anniversary contest model. In other words you would think "slightly special" ... The front sight was free to slide back and forth in the dovetail. The last Blackhawk I handled had gaps between frame and (plastic factory) grips big enough to see light through. Neither of those flaws "matters" in a safety sense but both would be embarrassing to own.

 

[JR47]

My first Ruger was a 10/22, built in 1974. I still have it, in it's original form, and it still shoots well. The second was a Security-Six, bought in the early 1980's. With the exception of Millet sights, and bigger grips, it's also still perking along. After that I bought a P85, a PRE Mark I, that I still shoot today.

Yet, I also own an American Rimfire in .22 WMR, a Model 77 Mk II in 7MM Rem Mag, and a set of SR9, SR9c, and SR45 pistols. NONE of them has given me any trouble.

After 32 years, I had to send my Mk. II pistol back in because the bolt stop pin had worn after tens of thousands of rounds. One week after they received it, it came back, fixed perfectly, test fired (target included), for FREE.

I also own a P89, a KP90, a P94, a KP95, a KP97, a KP345, a Super-Single-Six convertible, a GP100, one of the first Mini-14 Ranch rifles, a Model 77 pre-Mark, nine other 10/22 rifles, and a Super Blackhawk.

Surely, if the "quality had declined" as some declare, I'd have noticed.

Now, as far as returning for factory issues goes, I have had to return two brand-new S&W revolvers, a Model 625-3, and a 617. I also had to return my 669 semi-auto, and a Model 22-A. Moving along, I had to return an HK USP in .45 ACP because of a bad barrel, my Sig P229 because of a cracked slide, and I've watched S&W after S&W revolver fail a gunsmith's inspection at his shop.

Looking at one of the LGS the other day, I listened to the sales staff bemoaning the fact that S&W revolvers only seemed to cost more, but are "slapped together" any more.

I blame the rash of returned guns more on uneducated, and often new, shooters. Rarely do they seem to inspect the guns before buying them. Then, they never read the Manuals, or even clean them properly before shooting them. Of course, using the cheapest ammo they can find. Then, ANY "problems", like "it shoots to the low left" are, of course, the fault of the gun. So, back it goes, and here they come, complaining.

Every manufacturer has been trying to produce as many guns as possible, and to save a little money on each one to keep the prices competitive. Most new buyers aren't interested in perfect fits of grip to frame, or of a high luster finish. They want a gun that fits their budget, and costs as little as possible, but will shoot when they pull the trigger.

When the masses finally decided to buy guns, they influence the market much more than the guys who regard themselves as truly "gunny". The last group buy few guns in comparison.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I've had a couple of old ones and they were indeed very reliable. But I also have a new one and it is just as well built and reliable IMO.

I picked up a tang safety M77 in .243 for the wife and LOVE it. I hunt with it as much as she does.
I also have a NM Blackhawk that I bought new about 3-4 years ago. I've put loads through it that would make you question my sanity and it is just as good as new (I do wish it didn't have that damn internal safety though).

So they're still making quality stuff and over building revolvers.
They've just added other niches since ol' Bill's days and that's a good thing.

Ruger is one of the few companies that offer something for nearly everyone. Hunting rifles, target rifles, evil "assault" rifles, revolvers, auto pistols, several CC options and even over/under shotguns are all readily available and still in production. I think that's awesome.

 

[kcofohio]

We have acquired 8 or 9 Rugers ranging from 22 LR. to 45 Auto. No bottlenecks yet.

Out of those, there has been 2 minor issues. Front sight came loose on a LC9, which I replaced with a Williams fiber optic. And a magazine with a weak spring. Once I get around to figuring out which out of the 4 magazine it is, we'll find out how their CS is.

Over all, we have been pleased with Ruger.