Reduction in Ruger Quality

[rc]

I feel like Ruger has cheapened products that made the company great in order to maximize profits and come out with lesser models that stray away from traditional ruger quality. It seems like the current management is so greedy it will cut corners any way possible. We have seen this decline at Remington and now marlin.

Here are some examples:
Ruger 10/22 is a classic in all regards. First the stocks went from walnut to birch with plastic parts. Then the finish quality went as annodized gave way to painted receivers and then crinkle paint with rough barrels and plastic trigger guards and parts. I don't particularly care for the ruger extended mag release or the low quality of current 10/22s to buy a new one. I'd prefer a used scratched and dented older one to the current production rifles that now cost a lot more than competing products and give you get a lot less. It used to be that a 10/22 went head to head against Marlin Model 60s by being just a shade higher priced for a lot better gun. When you could get a marlin for $79.99 the Ruger 10/22 cost $99. Now the Marlin cost under $200 and the Ruger over $350. Ruger costs cannot have gone up that much compared to Marlin or Remington.

Lets also consider the 77 line. Finely polished rifles that could take customers away from the Winchester Model 70 in the 1990s by selling for a lot less gave way to bead blast rifles and cheap plastic stocks on stainless models. Now we have the Ruger American that goes head to head against Remington 710s and Savage Edge rifles while the lesser finished current 77s prices have been raised dramatically near Winchester Model 70 prices leaving the Howa 1500 as the industry leader for value in the $500 production rifle class.

While ruger changed back to polishing 10/22 barrels due to customer demand, they still haven't reversed course by eliminating the use of plastic on their guns or pricing their products so they are affordable to the common man like they did in the past. Ruger once represened an outstanding value for the dollars spent. I don't think that holds so true in today's market.

It seems to me that the more ruger has diversified products, the lesser the overall quality of the products coming out of their plant.

[ndking1126]

It seems to me the general gun buyer today looks for a low price and accuracy. I don't think they want to pay for a pretty looking gun, as they know it costs extra for that. IMO, Ruger is transforming their product line into what every one wants. I think Savage started this craze a little while back offering very accurate, but ugly rifles. Remington followed suite loosing their pretty wood and super-smooth bolts.

Based on your comments, it seems to me you put a lot of importance on the finish and easthetics, which could be part of your issues with Ruger. Based on what I've been reading in the past 2-3 years, Ruger seems to be working on their accuracy. 15 years ago when I got into rifles, their generally lower accuracy was what turned me away from them.

I certainly don't like plastic parts and don't mind paying for metal ones. But over all, there are many factors that make up a price. Everyone will have to determine what best fits their wants/needs at the price they can afford.

Good conversation to discuss, though.. interested in what everyone else has to say.

[cvc944]

Some think of guns as only tools, having to perform well, but not having to look good. Others think of guns as art objects to be adored, but never used lest they be marred. I think of them as both. I like good-looking, good-shooting guns that I can use. I don't worry that one might get scratched any more than I worry about anything I own getting scratched. I'm sure that Rugers aren't as pretty as they used to be every time I look at my old tang safety 77s and No. 1, but I still think they are as good as they ever were.

[arch308]

The trend seems to be good function at a reasonable price, looks are secondary. Not just with Ruger but across the board. It doesn't bother me, just makes my old pretty guns worth more.

[Scorch]

Corporations are in business to make a profit by selling products that meet customer demands for quality, features, appearance, etc. Ruger finally made the move towards a round receiver/fat bolt rifle in order to provide "budget conscious" shooters with an alternative to the Savage, Mossberg, Marlin, and Remington lines of budget/entry level rifles at a price that shoppers want to pay. They "cheapened" their rifles by cutting costs to meet a target price that the "budget conscious" buyers would still buy. And now the "budget conscious" buyers are complaining that Rugers no longer have the same features and higher-cost parts and finishes that made them so affordable to the low-budget shoppers. Well, do not despair! Those parts are still available through aftermarket suppliers, as are the high-gloss bluing and walnut stocks.

[stubbicatt]

I find in most of the domestically produced rifles of today there is a marked lack of attention to detail.

[Venom1956]

Yes I've also noticed the decline in Rugers quality. I am glad I acquired the newer ones when I did. Now if I get a Ruger its an old used one.

Also those MIM hammers and triggers on their DA revolvers are hideous WTH were they thinking!?

[GeauxTide]

I have a Remington 700, circa 1980. It has a painted aluminum floor plate. I believe that they have the corner on cheap. How many times have they introduced a cheap rifle after the 788 and failed?

[SSA]

I swore off Rugers about 20 years ago. Never understood why other people thought they were good guns.

[steveNChunter]

IMO the Ruger American is the best "bang for your buck" rifle currently available if you are concerned only about accuracy and function. I haven't bought one yet but many RAR owners have posted threads about them on here praising their accuracy and value. I just wish they would make it in a few more calibers.

As for the model 77, I agree they are overpriced and their quality has slipped lately. I much prefer my old tang safety in 6mm remington :) And I will also admit that the model 77 has never been as accurate out of the box as a Rem 700, Win 70, or Savage(not counting the axis/edge)

I also agree about the 10/22. I have one from the 80's and I much prefer it to a new one.

As for their handguns, they are my favorite revolvers by far. I have a stainless Blackhawk that is a 2011 model and it is top notch quality. And they have one of the better 1911s out there IMO.

[jmr40]

I swore off Rugers about 20 years ago. Never understood why other people thought they were good guns.

That is too bad because that is just about the time they really started building much better guns. Rugers at first did not make their own barrels. Instead they purchased them from outside vendors. Quality was all over the place depending on which manufacturer made that particular barrel. Rugers have always been a little rough, but also tough as nails. Still not the most refined gun, but would be near the top of my list if I wanted a rugged reliable gun that I could depend on in rugged conditions.

In 1992 Ruger finally starting building all their gun parts in house and quality and accuracy has really improved. These are some typical groups from a current production Ruger at 100 and 200 yards, all three groups are under .75 MOA

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m513/jmr40/013.jpg (http://s1129.photobucket.com/user/jmr40/media/013.jpg.html)

Ruger still offers a walnut stocked 10-22 for those wanting to pay a little more for one.

http://ruger.com/products/1022Sporter/models.html

And they offer many different versions as well including Target guns, SS/Synhetic and the traditional carbine which I've never cared for. The plastic parts used are a huge improvement over the cast aluminum parts they used to use. I've also noted that new production 10-22's are much more accuarte than older guns. If anything Rugers are getting better, not declining.

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m513/jmr40/22s001.jpg (http://s1129.photobucket.com/user/jmr40/media/22s001.jpg.html)

[Bigdog57]

My two current Ruger guns are a second-year-of-production Security Six revolver and a 10-22 Rifle introduced in about 2000 or so as the "Walmart Special" - 22" stainless barrel and birchwood stock. I like the birch, as it is denser and more stable than walnut. I do like a good piece of walnut, but it's no deal breaker. I did refinish it, as I deplore Ruger's proprietary stock finish. Now I can actually see the fairly decent wood grain. Accuracy and reliability are okay, but nothing great. I only bought the Ruger (along with a similar year Marlin 60SB) to compare to my older vintage .22 rifles. Many of the older rifles easily outshoot it and prove more reliable.
Several years back, I lucked into a tang-safety Model 77V in .22-250. Again refinished the stock. It was a very good shooter! At that time I was not handloading, so used Remington factory ammo (okay) and some handloads from a gunshow vendor who had done right by me with a .22 Hornet. His loads were superb in both rifles! Unfortunately, I was not hunting varmints, and needed money more than the rifle, so I sold it. I still mentally kick myself for that. :o
Have tried a Remington in .308Win and a Win70 in .270WSM for deer hunting - neither is as tight shooting as that Ruger was!

[Beentown71]

- Ruger are better now than they were before for its intended purposes.
- If there is a market for more expensive, prettier Ruger they would fill that market.
- The dollar isn't worth near as much as it used to be so we will get less fit and finish to keep the same or better accuracy. While CNC and designs get better walnut and labor become more expensive.
- At least they are not promoting mag bans anymore...

[deepcreek]

I shot a Ruger SR9 last weekend I was very unimpressed by the cheap plastic feel of it. I wouldn't pay more then the cost of a Hi-point for it.

[JD0x0]

I have a Ruger M77 chambered in .270 win and the serial # tells me it was built in 2006. The rifle is extremely well built. Solid, WAY more accurate than I expected (stock trigger, factory ammo, cheap 3x9 scope) it'll shoot sub MOA with most decent factory ammo. I had also heard the triggers SUCK on the M77's and while it's no 1200 yard target trigger, it's more than acceptable, for me, and can be easily upgraded if desired.

[tahunua001]

Here are some examples:
Ruger 10/22 is a classic in all regards. First the stocks went from walnut to birch with plastic parts. Then the finish quality went as annodized gave way to painted receivers and then crinkle paint with rough barrels and plastic trigger guards and parts. I don't particularly care for the ruger extended mag release or the low quality of current 10/22s to buy a new one. I'd prefer a used scratched and dented older one to the current production rifles that now cost a lot more than competing products and give you get a lot less. It used to be that a 10/22 went head to head against Marlin Model 60s by being just a shade higher priced for a lot better gun. When you could get a marlin for $79.99 the Ruger 10/22 cost $99. Now the Marlin cost under $200 and the Ruger over $350. Ruger costs cannot have gone up that much compared to Marlin or Remington.

you have no idea what you are talking about. the marlin model 60 has always been cheaper than the 10/22 but not by much. every single one of my LGS including walmart have 10/22s at all times and they all cost $200, $220 if you opt for the stainless steel model. the marlin 60 is running just around $180 which goes along with your anecdote about $80 marlins and $100 rugers. about $350 for a 10/22 is a distributors special. there are only about 60 different distributor exclusives and they range from target models to just prettied and pinked. even the MSRP on the 10/22 carbine is less than what you quoted and most of the time MSRP is a fair bit over what actual retail price is.

plastic trigger guards? I have no idea what you are talking about there, my 10/22 is fairly recent, about 4 years or so old and it's still got a metal trigger guard and I haven't noticed plastic on any of the 10/22s I've fondled in the stores. yes the painted recievers aren't nearly as nice but everyone has had to cut corners to keep prices low. even Glock and Colt have had to do this, you think Ruger is any different. if things like paint on aluminum bothers you then perhaps you should just stop buying guns because anything like what what you describe in a modern gun runs a great deal of money for a reason.

Lets also consider the 77 line. Finely polished rifles that could take customers away from the Winchester Model 70 in the 1990s by selling for a lot less gave way to bead blast rifles and cheap plastic stocks on stainless models. Now we have the Ruger American that goes head to head against Remington 710s and Savage Edge rifles while the lesser finished current 77s prices have been raised dramatically near Winchester Model 70 prices leaving the Howa 1500 as the industry leader for value in the $500 production rifle class.
again you have no idea what you are talking about. my older brother bought a Ruger M77 in the 90s with one of those cheap plastic stocks and stainless steel finish. it is still in his collection after enough use to make the US ordnance dept consider retiring it, yet it's still going strong. also recent acquired by myself is an early 00s M77 in blued finish and fine walnut stock and it's a great and now just added to the brothers collection is a M77 in 223 with a hogue overmould stock and parkerized finish that would be the envy of any mall ninjas collection and though not as flashy, is much more durable of a finish than blued and better feel than walnut. he also added a M77 in 39 that though does not rival my M77 for wood quality, isn't off the mark by much. I think you need to seriously consider what you are ranting about before you begin because your exaggerations tend to discredit your entire position.

you can stop buying rugers if you like. all the more fore me and my fams :D

[Guv]

I have an old tang safety 6mm and was thinking about getting a new 77 .223. What turned me off was the fact that they are matt blued now, just like most scopes you find these days.

[csmsss]

I find the notion that the price a consumer pays for an item is somehow a direct descendant of the cost to manufacture it rather amusing. The manufacturer of a product will (generally) ALWAYS try to obtain the selling price which maximizes profitability. It's an uneasy marriage of anticipated demand and the curve of variable costs. Unit cost does not always descend in a linear fashion with increasing production - and at a certain point actually rises as formerly (more or less) fixed costs spike exponentially when certain production levels are exceeded (ie you have to buy more equipment, build a bigger facility, hire more administrative staff, etc.).

My point? Only that it's a sucker's game to think that you can assume that a product with an average cost of A will necessarily sell for A x some arbitrary factor when sold to the public.

[hooligan1]

I have no dog in this fight, but I have enjoyed reading some of this bickering back and forth..... To me, the Ruger #1 rifles are my favorite rugers ,then older 77's.... And I really like their " Single Six" line of pistols and Vaquero's also, Blackhawks and Redhawks...:)

[dgludwig]

Dollar for dollar, it's my opinion that Ruger firearms are every bit as good or better than their competition. Always have been and still are. I currently have several Ruger handguns, a 10-22 and four Model 77s. All are well-finished, exhibit excellent workmanship, durable, reliable and plenty accurate. No complaints from this long-time, Ruger customer.

[Cowboy_mo]

I currently owner a Ruger Mark III 22/45 and a Ruger SP101. I had the use of my brother's Ruger Security Six for many years and cried when he needed it back.

I also owned a Ruger 10/22 (older with Walnut stock and metal trigger and trigger guard). It was a superb shooter from the bench but not so good to me in hunting situations because it didn't fit my frame. Not the guns fault and it always performed flawlessly.

Currently I am lusting after the Ruger SR 1911 and if I didn't have 3 very good centerfire rifles already would be purchasing one of the new Ruger Americans.

If you don't like their products, DON'T BUY THEM! However I take exception to your complaints about the company and their products.

[BigD_in_FL]

While ruger changed back to polishing 10/22 barrels due to customer demand, they still haven't reversed course by eliminating the use of plastic on their guns or pricing their products so they are affordable to the common man like they did in the past. Ruger once represened an outstanding value for the dollars spent. I don't think that holds so true in today's market.

Really? I bought my first 10/22 decades ago - it NEVER came with a walnut stock unless you bought the higher grade model - and I paid 20 years ago what a new one costs today.

You whine about them being affordable to the common man - unless you are still working for minimum wage, their current pricing is affordable to just about everyone, even high school kids working at mickey D's (ammo is another story)
In order to maintain a price point that even walmart shoppers can afford, some things had to be made for less. Seems to me that you have no idea about manufacturing costs and expect things to be priced the same even though the governments have raised taxes, insurance, mandated health care, rising costs for raw materials, shipping, utilities, etc..........

[chipchip]

Shot my new M77 Markll Varmint Target in 6.5 Creedmoor for the first time today, Shot 1/2" @ 100 yards. Haven't shot a rifle in 5 years so I'd say that Ruger is pretty good.

[steveNChunter]

There have been some good points made about differences in new and old Rugers, and some BS thrown in the mix as well. I'll throw in a little more of what I believe to be true. Your feelings may vary...

Ruger has:

THE BEST .22 target pistol (Browning Buckmark a close 2nd)

THE BEST .22 semiauto rifle platform on which to build

THE BEST (arguably) revolvers DA and SA

one of the THE BEST 1911s

one of THE BEST entry/budget level 9mm handguns - P95

THE BEST single shot rifle within reasonable price

THE BEST entry/budget level bolt action rifle - RAR

Once again, that is entirely opinion, but if all that can be said about one brand, its doing alright.

[reynolds357]

Rc, I dont know about the 10-22 because both of mine are old. Rugers high end product has not suffered due to introduction of cheaper rifles. If you want high dollar,"high quality" Rugers; they still make them. I am no fan of Ruger's "quality." I have a Ruger 6PPC that will not outshoot my .30-30 lever action. I had a .22-250 that in over 500 rounds of load development never turned in a 5 shot group under 7/8" at 100. I have done everything I can do to the PPC and it just wont shoot. All that is left is a re-barrel. I guess I will do that next.

[Daggitt]

I love my Ruger revolvers. My Stainless Single Six is a thing of beauty and is of the finest quality. My circa 1980 Redhawk shoots as well as the day it came off the line. Zero repairs in over 30 years and tougher than Thor's mythical hammer. What else could you expect ? Miss America to spring out of the shipping crate?

[tahunua001]

stevenchunter,
many could take issue with most of the things you've said. I'll just compound upon a couple points.
1. the SR1911, though very well made and very high quality is not THE BEST 1911 around or probably even one of the top 5 but considering the relatively low price tag it is the best within it's price range.
2. the "best revolver" is quite arguable. however they are without a doubt the strongest actions, enabling Rugers to be loaded hotter than any other brand.

[steveNChunter]

tahunua- I did not claim the SR1911 to be the best, but one of the best, with value being a leading factor. I agree there are better 1911s if you have $1000+ to spend. But for $700 or so, they are hard to beat.

The strength of their revolvers is a well known fact and one of the reasons they are my personal favorite. But you should note that I did mention that they were arguably the best revolvers. I realize alot of people LOVE S&Ws or Colts or something else and thats OK. It leaves more Rugers for me ;)

But for that matter, everything in that post was arguable, it was just my opinions. I was simply trying to prove a point to the OP that Ruger has alot more going for them than he gives them credit for.

[DATL]

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of my recent Gunsite Scout purchase.

[silvermane_1]

see sig line :D

[Water-Man]

I own a Mark II, GP-100, LCR and Mini 14.

With the exception of the LCR, I've owned the rest for quite awhile.

None of them are for sale. ;)

[K1500]

I have Rugers of several different vintages, and my experience is the new ones are as good or better than anything they have put out in the past. Some of the engineering changes may be disagreeable to you (transfer bars, plastic trigger guards, 10/22 mag releases) but the quality is as good or better than it ever was.

[TX Hunter]

I think Ruger is just trying to survive in this poor economy. Consumers are strapped for cash and the price is the top priority in most purchases. I have alot of respect for Ruger, they have not sold out and are providing jobs for American Citizens.

[Rifleman1776]

When I shop for a gun my quest always brings me back to Ruger. This after a comparison of quality, price and my experience with their reliability and customer service. I am not Ruger loyal. I am loyal to what I want, expect and my pocketbook.
BTW, Ruger does not have liability insurance. They pay for and fight their own battles. The cost for that is built into the price of the product.

[anothernewb]

I'm a recent addition to the gun owners club, as such I can't comment on how Ruger has changed over the years.

However, what I can comment on is from a recent buyer standpoint. With no predilection towards brands, and no real product history to go on - I have indiscriminately purchased firearms based on what I have handled, and used. To my surprise, half of all the guns I have ended up being rugers of one form or another, most of them new models.

With regard to the 10/22 I will agree that out of the box it was not the most accurate or the best finished firearm I own, however; what it did do was work, all the time, every time. It ate whatever ammo i put in it - it remains today my most stable and predictable firearm with regards to ammo and weather conditions. The trigger is plastic, it's okay by me. I never used a metal one so I have no idea what to compare it to. But the one that's there is good enough, and comparable to the competition.
Granted, I have replaced the barrel with an aftermarket highly polished blued one, and the replacement sporter stock is a walnut one that's over 20 years old. and the trigger has been reworked to a lighter and smoother movement. I can say that IMO my final configuration is what the gun should be in a "loaded" configuration option. To that defense, why not? the 10/22 worked great when I got it, but yeah i agree - it could be so much more. I paid $200 for the gun, new, and I put about $200 extra into the gun over a year to make it that. Would I have paid $400 from the shop for it in my final configuration?- doubtful. $400 seems like too much when I look at it that way. But $200, and than another $200 in modifications - sure. Somehow I can swallow that. Simple marketing. I think Ruger is right on with this one.

With regard to the my other Ruger firearms - some I own because they are the only one in that niche (Charger) and others (SR1911) had what I felt to be the best balance between cost and features. While I would never compare the looks of my GP100 to the sleek sexy appeal of a 686 or a python - I found it more comfortable to shoot than my friends 686, and no discernible difference in trigger feel.

Has Ruger made cost cutting measures - undoubtedly. But so have so many other firearm makers. Look at a set of smith revolvers from 1960 to today - a 686 today is not a 686 from 1980, and either of them aren't a model 19 either. It happens

I agree with the others here who have posted that the firearms have been tweaked more towards the emphasis of accuracy over looks. Lawyering up triggers and actions -I feel has done far more though to destroy firearm feel and function than any changeover in manufacturing processes.

[dgludwig]

Your insights make a lot of good sense-even if you are a self-described "newb". :)

[03Shadowbob]

I have a number of Rugers, some better than others. They are responding to consumer spending like any business.
My new American is an awesome gun and IMO much better than the Entry level Savages, Remington's and others.
The 10/22s definitely have plastic trigger guards and the one I bought a number of years ago has it.
My single six, SBH and 22/45 are great well made guns.

[Axelwik]

I really like my Rugers. New and old... Even the plastic SR45 I just bought. And my new Rugers are more accurate.

[batmann]

While I have no Ruger rifles, I do have several Ruger pistols. The two Blackhawk Flattops I have have been flawless in operation and they are the fairly recent 50th editions, one in .357 and the other in .44 M. They are safe to carry with six rounds, go bang every time and I admit they are not as nicely finished as a Colt, they are half the money and with a Colt can you only carry five safely and the Ruger is more durable if you shoot a lot or shoot heavy loads.
I also purchased a new Ruger SR 22 pistol and it is as nice as any pistol in the same price range.
Every gun maker has has some quality slip in the past 5-6 months due to demand and Ruger is no exception, but this will pass as it did with Winchester (remember 1964), Colt (remember the late 70's and early 80's) and others.

[Hardcase]

I don't think that Ruger is different from any manufacturer that builds a product to a particular price point. If the cost of materials goes up, the choice is to either substitute a less expensive component or change the price point. I think that in Ruger's case, they've primarily maintained the price points of the 10/22, at least in comparison to similar rifles from other manufacturers. To do that, they've had to substitute equivalently functional aluminum, plastic and paint for more costly materials.

I've got an old 10/22, a 22/45 Mk III and an LCP. Functionally, the new 10/22s are comparable to the new one (although I do like the feel of the metal parts on mine). The 22/45 and the LCP work exactly as they're supposed to and have never given me a lick of trouble, so I can't complain about Ruger (other than the horrible billboard on the side of the 22/45.)

[johnwilliamson062]

Not many people want to pay for finish on a 22. Ruger does offer distributor specials that offer everything you mention. I have one. I have seriously considered selling it for an equally functional "Wal-Mart special."
I think Rugers market is people who own guns but aren't shooters. They offer great products for this market. They handle marketing, which is more than just promotion, much better than their competitors.

[danez71]

plastic trigger guards? I have no idea what you are talking about there, my 10/22 is fairly recent, about 4 years or so old and it's still got a metal trigger guard and I haven't noticed plastic on any of the 10/22s I've fondled in the stores

Seriously?

I think they went to the plastic towards the end of 2008 and introduced it in the 2009 Shot Show

[dgludwig]

Yep, as danez71 says, Ruger 10-22s have came with plastic trigger guards for several years now. I actually prefer the plastic material over the original alloy ones because they don't scratch or chip nearly as easy as the metal ones did. I do, however, generally prefer metal as opposed to plastic in most parts applications on most firearms.

[Bart B.]

I well remember those 20 Model 77 single shot rifles Ruger designed and put together by Ruger's finest craftsmen for the US Palma Team in 1991. Sorriest batch of so called "very accurate" rifles ever seen and shot by some of the best riflemen on this planet. Poor stock design, barrel quality, triggers, and they were called "wash tub" rifles. That's how big the groups they shot were. So the team used their own "tea cup" rifles. But the Rugers did have top quality sights on them.

[reynolds357]

Bart, the same group of fine gun smiths that you mention must be the ones that built my Ruger 6ppc. You have to work hard to make a ppc a poor shooter, but Ruger managed to accomplish poor accuracy out of a PPC and do it with flying colors.

[bamaranger]

I've got no beef with new Rugers, 'cause I don't really own any. That's because with the exception of the Ruger Scout, there is not a new Ruger that I want.
And that's the trick. A maker needs to produce guns that people want to own. Really, how many synthetic stocked, matte finished rifles do you really need? One price point .270 is about as desireable as the next. It's not about need, its about wanting to buy one 'cause you fancy it.

Old Bill Ruger was good at that. He saw gaps and niche's in the market, knew what shooters would want, what they would find desireable, interestng. He was a shooter and hunter himself. Lots of stuff got done at Ruger 'cause that's the way the old man said they'd do it. And he was right most times about it.

Now, Bill Ruger is gone and so are most of their interesting guns. I read an interview once where the old man said they'd make the "Old Army" as long as he was running the company. Its gone now. So too all the .44 carbines, gas and levers both. And the SXS shotgun too I think. Sec-6 as well. Likely others I'm not aware of.

The Ruger Scout is the current exception to their problem, but it's come along about 15-20 yrs to late.

[BigD_in_FL]

the "best revolver" is quite arguable. however they are without a doubt the strongest actions, enabling Rugers to be loaded hotter than any other brand

Sorry, but I will go with Freedom Arms in that regard with the older Dan Wessons, and the N frame Smiths all well above a Ruger's cast frame with MIM parts

[reynolds357]

Big D, I agree with the late 80's manufactured Dan Wessons.

[GeauxTide]

I think Ruger is just trying to survive in this poor economy

A dear friend works for a large distributor. Ruger told them not to place any orders for three months because of the backlog of orders. This is a great time to be in the gun business!

[steveNChunter]

This is a great time to be in the gun business!

Very true. The past few months have seen unprecedented demand for firearms and ammunition by the public. It may be a poor economy for the nation as a whole, but the gunmakers are thriving.

The huge backlog of orders kinda worries me though. I am afraid QC may slip a little in an effort to keep up with demand. That goes not just for Ruger but every company. At least with Ruger you know they will make it right if you send it back to them. They always have.

[Justice06RR]

I shot a Ruger SR9 last weekend I was very unimpressed by the cheap plastic feel of it. I wouldn't pay more then the cost of a Hi-point for it.

:confused:

You are definitely clueless there.

There is no comparison with a Hipoint and a Ruger SR9. I wouldn't buy a Hipoint; you'd have to give it to me. I still won't use it to defend my life. I've shot one and know enough how they perform; crude and not always 100% reliable.

Now the SR series pistols have been tested and updated. They are great pistols for the value. Usually around $399 for the 9mm or 40. I would not hesitate to buy an SR9/40 and use it for CC and self-defense.

If you're saying you won't pay more than $150 for a Ruger pistol, well then get yourself a Hipoint...

[rc]

I have a variety of ruger firearms from different years of manufacture. I know ruger quality and the changes they have made as well as anyone. I am very disappointed about the dramatic rising prices of their products and what I see as cost cutting. Companys across the board seem to do this as they gain reputation and sales. Corners are cut as long as sales stay strong. You are free to disagree and say I don't know What I'm talking about but Ruger today is a different company than it was in the early 70s. Ruger standard 10/22 carbine used to come with a Walnut stock and annodized finish up the mid to late 70s or early 80s. I bought one of these stocks off ebay and see complete rifles come up for auction regular enough. They sell at a premium. Older guns also had two bolt guide rails in the receiver. This feature was later deleated. Deluxe carbines have always had walnut. The annodized black finish lasted till around the mid 90s. Now even the Deluxe 10/22 has plastic parts on the trigger guard and cheaper painted finish. How is this keeping up standards of their products? They also deleted the hammer bushings when they adopted the plastic trigger group making it harder to drop in a hammer parts kit from power custom/volquartzen etc to improve pull without buying more parts. I'll agree ruger still makes very functional firearms, but I disagree that they have maintained quality standards or are as affordable as they ever were. I do know what I'm talking about but it is obvious that a lot of you who want to slam me for starting this topic haven't seen very many Ruger guns.

[deepcreek]

You are definitely clueless there.

There is no comparison with a Hipoint and a Ruger SR9. I wouldn't buy a Hipoint; you'd have to give it to me. I still won't use it to defend my life. I've shot one and know enough how they perform; crude and not always 100% reliable.

Now the SR series pistols have been tested and updated. They are great pistols for the value. Usually around $399 for the 9mm or 40. I would not hesitate to buy an SR9/40 and use it for CC and self-defense.

If you're saying you won't pay more than $150 for a Ruger pistol, well then get yourself a Hipoint...

Sorry but I consider SR9 a POS plastic, low grade and cheaply made the same as I consider a Hi-piont.

I am in the market for a Mark III at $300. I think it is a nice gun and a good deal at $300. Other then the Mark III I am not impressed with Ruger these days.

[L_Killkenny]

It's pretty clear that some posting have no clue about guns while others have no clue about business. And both groups want the same dang thing, $700 guns for $300.

I'll be the first to admit that I prefer the older 10/22's over the newer ones, prefer the Security Six to the GP, don't like loaded chamber indicators and mag disconnects, etc, etc. But I realize what and why they do certain things and overall think they make good products at a price point to fill a niche. They are also doing some things better than before like producing quality high-cap mags, improving the Mini, improving the accuracy of the 77, introducing new and innovative guns, etc.

Sure there are better guns made in each of the categories Ruger ventures into but you have to pay for it. That improvement, sometimes a very small improvement, doesn't come for free like some here tend to think it should. Ruger was one of the best values in guns when they started in the 50's, was again in the 60's, the 70's, the 80's and the 90's. Hasn't changed much this century.

[dgludwig]

I do know what I'm talking about but it is obvious that a lot of you who want to slam me for starting this topic haven't seen very many Ruger guns.

You started this thread expressing an opinion not shared by some. Did you want an open discussion re the topic or did you expect only posters who agree with your position to respond? To say that those who have disagreed with you "haven't seen very many Ruger guns" is a cheap and unwarranted shot. And I haven't seen where anyone has wanted to "slam" you for starting this topic-unless you consider anyone who disagrees with your position a slammer. If that's the case, consider yourself slammed-again. :eek:

[tahunua001]

I shot a Ruger SR9 last weekend I was very unimpressed by the cheap plastic feel of it. I wouldn't pay more then the cost of a Hi-point for it.


You are definitely clueless there.

There is no comparison with a Hipoint and a Ruger SR9. I wouldn't buy a Hipoint; you'd have to give it to me. I still won't use it to defend my life. I've shot one and know enough how they perform; crude and not always 100% reliable.

Now the SR series pistols have been tested and updated. They are great pistols for the value. Usually around $399 for the 9mm or 40. I would not hesitate to buy an SR9/40 and use it for CC and self-defense.

If you're saying you won't pay more than $150 for a Ruger pistol, well then get yourself a Hipoint...
+1, the fit, finish, and materials of the SR series handguns are pretty much superior in every way to just about every handgun in it's price range with maybe the exception of the beretta PX4, I'm sure that if you hate the quality of an SR series handgun you would also never buy a glock, M&P or XD as well.

[L_Killkenny]

I do know what I'm talking about but it is obvious that a lot of you who want to slam me for starting this topic haven't seen very many Ruger guns.

Ya know, every so often I get a customer that swears up and down that they're good for it, the check is as good as in the mail, money's in the bank etc. Those are the ones that I have to ride up and down to even have a chance of getting paid. Your post(s) are the same dang way but about guns. The more you scream about what you know the more obvious it becomes about what you don't know.

I've had/have Rugers from the 70's, 80's, 90's and the 2000's. My most recent being bought last year. Good thinkin blowing smoke outta your butt about what I and others haven't seen.

(BTW, might help if you learned to use some punctuation, proper use of caps and maybe broke things up so I could get a breath while trying to sort out what the heck you're spouting.)

[tahunua001]

all personal jabs aside.
the OP was completely wrong on the price point of Ruger 10/22s, estimating them to be double actual retail value. the talk about skyrocketing prices is also a little exaggerated considering that a 10/22 is the same price today that they were 5 years ago while gasoline is about $.80-1 a gallon more than it was then and that's with the price drop over the winter. 5 years ago your average ford F150 cost about $2,000-3,000 less than they do now yet I bet there is nothing more special about the way that they were manufactured.

you can still get wood stocks on 10/22 carbines that cost the same as a 10/22 carbine with a plastic one. no they are not the same quality that they were in the 70s but they are still serviceable and durable, I have yet to see anyone's 10/22s have the stock explode while in use. the paint is an admitted drop in quality yet my painted 10/22 doesn't have a spot of rust on it so it can't be much worse than anodized aside from less attractive use but guess what? I don't buy a 22LR for a safe queen, I buy it to go out and shoot stuff and to do that a lot and often. I defy you to list any problem with a modern 10/22 that was not a problem with a 90s era 10/22. there are none because the 10/22 with all it's cosmetic 'corner cutting' is still just as reliable as it has always been.

OP has been slammed with evidence to the contrary of his argument and he takes it as personal vindictive attacks, we are simply stated that as much as he whines about their quality Ruger is still superior to Remington, Winchester and a lot of the other big box brands of equal monetary value.

[deepcreek]

It's pretty clear that some posting have no clue about guns while others have no clue about business. And both groups want the same dang thing, $700 guns for $300.

I understand business, people make what you think consumers will buy. But there is also other factors like reputation and quality when businesses start trying to market cheap goods they get known for cheap goods.

It's not just Ruger that I have seen quality go way down with, many other brands also I pick up a lot of guns now days and they are half plastic with cheap parts that look and feel like they will break if you are unlucky enough to drop it.

Same deal with cars and other consumer goods “Made in the USA” used to mean something. Some people don't care anymore we live in a throw away consumer society.

[lefteye]

FWIW, I have observed changes in Ruger design, features and quality for about 40 years. Other brands have undergone a similar evolution. I currently own ten Ruger firearms and my last four purchases were Rugers. I very much regret selling my first Ruger, a Single Six Convertible 22/22WMRF. It was the only Ruger I've ever sold. I would have at least a couple more Ruger bolt action rifles if the company made exactly what I wanted. I believe Ruger firearms are a good match for other brands in their price range. :)

[Armybrat]

I bought new 10/22s in 1968, 1976, & 1978 - they all have nice walnut stocks.

Bought a like new Blackhawk .357 from my brother in 1968 - great single action.

Bought a Service Six in the late '70s (IIRC) and a Mini-14 in the '80s - both fine, rugged weapons.

Bought an SP101 in the '90s, and that little thing is built like a tank.

More recently I have bought new an LCP, an SR9, and an SR45 - all of them are excellent quality and very reliable.

They stack up equally well to my S&W wheelguns, my Colts, and also my Springer 1911.

Wouldn't hesitate to buy another one.

The only Ruger I ever got rid of was my first one, a Mark I Standard traded in for a new Single Six in 1959. Still have the SS, but wish I had the Mk I too.

[rc]

I am all for Ruger making money. I am against some of the changes that cut coners. Some of you assert this is to compete, meet a price point, give people what they want, etc. You are entitled to your opinion. This is a free and open forum to discuss ideas. How did all the gun makers like S&W compete before MIM parts? Changes to improve profitability for multi million dollar CEOs to get a bonus does not translate into a better product for the consumer but it does help line pockets. A Remington 870 Express does not have the forged parts of an 870 Police. If the parts were all the same, why the difference in price? Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard. In applications where failure is more acceptable, a cheaper part is substituted. I never said Rugers are Junk, dangerous, etc. Nor am I saying an 870 express is total junk. What I have asserted, (and you are free to disagree), is that Ruger products today are not built to the same standards as they once were. To me, this means products like the 10/22 that have been produced for years are not of the same quality today as they were in the past in the same way an 870 express is not the same gun as a classic 1960s wingmaster or a currently produced 870 police. If you disagree and would prefer buying a current Ruger over a used one with prior production quality, be my guest. That's your right.

[tuck2]

I don't recall what the average salary was for workers was back in 1952 when I purchased a Win Mdl 70 270 for $ 127 . Now the average income is in the $ 50--60,000 range. Please correct me if I m wrong. A new Win 70 is in the $ 1,000 range. Over the years I have owned Anschutz , Browning, Cooper, Kimber, Howa , Parker Hale, Sako, Remington, Ruger, Winchester, and Weatherby firearms. The price paid somewhat reflected the workers salary and cost of materials at the time of the purchase. But the better quality walnut wood has increased at a faster rate than inflation. Copper was about 20 cents per pound when I started reloading in 1953 and now its over $ 3 per pound. Back when I purchased the 270 Win rifle workers had very few benifets and the value of the $ was much higher in world trade. Firearms price and quality simpley reflect what is going on in the world.

[JWT]

in the past year I have purchased both the SR1911 military length and the commander length .45 ACP. The quality on both is very good, especially considering the price. I looked at the Remington 1911 and although the price is similar the quality and fit is no where near that on the Ruger.

[L_Killkenny]

I am all for Ruger making money. I am against some of the changes that cut coners. Some of you assert this is to compete, meet a price point, give people what they want, etc. You are entitled to your opinion. This is a free and open forum to discuss ideas. How did all the gun makers like S&W compete before MIM parts? Changes to improve profitability for multi million dollar CEOs to get a bonus does not translate into a better product for the consumer but it does help line pockets. A Remington 870 Express does not have the forged parts of an 870 Police. If the parts were all the same, why the difference in price? Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard. In applications where failure is more acceptable, a cheaper part is substituted. I never said Rugers are Junk, dangerous, etc. Nor am I saying an 870 express is total junk. What I have asserted, (and you are free to disagree), is that Ruger products today are not built to the same standards as they once were. To me, this means products like the 10/22 that have been produced for years are not of the same quality today as they were in the past in the same way an 870 express is not the same gun as a classic 1960s wingmaster or a currently produced 870 police. If you disagree and would prefer buying a current Ruger over a used one with prior production quality, be my guest. That's your right.

I don't think anyone here is stating the current production 10/22 is on par with the older models and I for one am willing to give as much and maybe a touch more for a clean used model from the 70's, 80's or even 90's. But you are only looking at one or two facets of Ruger and not the whole picture. One facet is that ALL gun manufactures have gone to cost cutting measures and singling out Ruger is very one sided. Even you bring up Remington and the great and powerful Winchester was notorious for doing it. Hell, even Colt and S&W do it. Then you toss out all the good and sometimes innovative things Ruger has done in recent years. High caps mags, a rugged and affordable 1911, improvements to the M77, a decent AR, many new SD and service oriented handguns, etc etc. But perhaps the biggest statement comes from your own post....

Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard.

You seem to think all of this is based merely on profits and head honcho bonus' which on the the surface is almost valid. But profits are good and if a CEO wants a couple million a year than so be it. Counter thinking against this is one of our country's biggest downfalls. Plus profits and bonus' are so far from the whole story as to make your argument complete bunk. You absolutely IGNORE all the other factors which many have pointed out. The facts are that if you want a top of the line 10/22 they are available. Magnum Research, Volquartsen and others make em and you pay dearly for em. Not because of profits and bonus' but because they cost more to make. If you want Ruger to make em like they used to you again will pay dearly for them. Then what happens? You and others like you will be crying about how much they cost and STILL about profits and bonus'.

Open your eyes, get off the profits and bonus' and realize that higher quality = higher price tags and it doesn't matter if you talkin donuts, cars, guns or women.

You don't like Ruger than don't buy one, I and everyone else is fine with that. And you won't see too many people argue that their overall manufacture of guns is light years better than the competition. But if your head is so far in the sand to just base your opinion off one or maybe 2 models and to think they are any different than ALL of manufactures out there you need to step back and take a far better look.

[silvermane_1]

L_Killkenny hit the nail squarely on the head, you pays for you get, if you want primo kit, you have to shell out the $$$.

[dgludwig]

[QUOTE] A Remington 870 Express does not have the forged parts of an 870 Police.[/QUOTE

Which parts are "forged" on the Police model that aren't on the Express model?

[johnwilliamson062]

I think the key thing to take from this thread is that Ruger isn't marketing towards us. When I started shooting Ruger made most of the guns that interested me. Price point was right, features were right, quality was right. As stated above, I now have my one bolt action gun. If I want another I will probably go for a higher quality one. Even my 10/22 is up for grabs as I would now prefer one of the aftermarket receivers with a few extra features. Ruger is trying to the one rifle to the hundreds of thousands of hunters who want just one rifle, not the dozens of rifles to the very few people who want that many firearms. They make great products for that market segment and they don't care if they sell the 20 people in this thread 8 guns a piece as long as they sell 160 people who have NEVER been on a firearm forum 1 gun.

[rc]

John, I think you've made my point. Ruger no longer cares about attracting name recognition as they did in 1949. People buy Rugers because they are an industry leader, not always because they make the best product. They don't care about people who know the difference because so many people don't know or don't care.

dgludwig, the extractor on the 870 express is one part that is changed out by places like Vang Comp and others who customize the express models for reliability. I know there has been a move away from aluminum and towards plastic in the Remington Express trigger guards as well as Ruger 10/22 trigger guards. I am not sure of other parts that vary on the express, but it's generally recognized that the Express models are rougher and take more breaking in than the old wingmasters. We can argue economics vs. quality all day long. I would concede it's not just Ruger cutting corners as I have already indicated, but they are one of my favorite gun makers and I'm sad they have drifted from their traditional production standards. rc

[dgludwig]

I asked the question, rc, because I don't think there's any evidence that Remington is making some Model 870 shotguns with "forged parts" and some not. The finish, even workmanship, might vary from a higher-end Model 870 (the Wingmaster for instance) to an entry-level Model 870 (the Express, for instance), but I doubt that there is any forged part substitute.

[tahunua001]

Ruger no longer cares about attracting name recognition as they did in 1949
you are absolutely correct. I mean no company that is attempting t attract customers would stoop so low as to completely revamp their service/duty/self defense pistol lines, making 22lr analogs to modern tactical weaponry for cheap training days, reproducing an american classic like the 1911, and introducing a piston driven AR15 lineup all in a 5 year period I might add.

who in their right mind would give the public what they want when they should just be building the stuff that gave them their good name?

PS;
in case you didn't notice... that was a 100% sarcastic post.

[dgludwig]

PS;
in case you didn't notice... that was a 100% sarcastic post.

I'm glad you clarified that. And your sarcasm is entirely apropos and illuminating. :)

[johnwilliamson062]

People buy Rugers because they are an industry leader, not always because they make the best product. They don't care about people who know the difference because so many people don't know or don't care.
That wasn't my point. People buy Rugers because Rugers are EXACTLy what they want, they just aren't what you want.
Honda Pilot and Porsche Cayenne. I've ridden in both. The differences are obvious and I am aware of them. I'm still not buying a Porsche Cayenne because at the end of the day my Ruger 10/22 doesn't care which floor mat it rests on during the ride to the range. I'm not sure on when Ruger took market share, but I think it was relatively recently. It was because of the changes you are bemoaning.
I received a survey from them a week or two ago. It was the BEST marketing survey I have ever completed. Concise and I think they got great info with their questions. They market(to the patriotic masses) WAY WAY better than any of their competition.