Omission In Ruger 75th Anniversary

[44caliberkid]

I was reading the American Rifleman article chronicling Ruger’s 75 year anniversary and noticed this glaring omission. I realize it was intended to be a positive, feel good piece, but my long memory of Ruger always includes William Ruger’s self imposed magazine capacity ban and his public statement, “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun.”
Quote from Wikipedia:
William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions. Ruger proposed that instead of banning firearms, Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.[12] Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News in 1992 that "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun".[13][14] On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.[15]
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

I remember this very well, being a LE, recreational shooter and 2nd amendment activist at the time. Many people vowed to never buy another gun from the traitor Ruger and hated him the rest of his days. And anti gunners still use this quote against us more than 30 years later. I imagine many younger shooters are unaware of this act of treachery.

[4V50 Gary]

I also remember this. Catherine Austin Fitts gave the best reason for more than ten rounds.

Home invaders never come alone and you’ll need more than ten rounds.

[The Verminator]

So........one man's opinion.

No big deal.

[georgehwbush]

seems to me the openion of one man is all that is ever counted. "stalen, moosaliene, hittler, mow, ..." expand to adnoisium.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by georgehwbush

seems to me the openion of one man is all that is ever counted. "stalen, moosaliene, hittler, mow, ..." expand to adnoisium.

Does yours count?

[georgehwbush]

world wide ? probably not. locally ? yeah, some times.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by georgehwbush

world wide ? probably not. locally ? yeah, some times.

LOL!

You're better off than me then.

[44caliberkid]

The subject is Ruger history, and at the time it was a very big deal. Before the internet, gun magazines and 2nd Amendment newsletters were the source of all info about gun laws and every editor was calling for Ruger’s head and pushing for boycott of Ruger products. It resulted in the ‘93 omnibus crime bill including the assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limits. It resulted in no more imported semiauto rifles and pistols from Russia and Eastern Europe satellites and China (bye bye Norinco). It also resulted in retroactive enforcement, people being punished for misdemeanor offenses committed before the law went into effect. A lot of people also quit NRA for not doing more to stop it. I personally had Kane Robinson, then NRA president, tell me, “We aren’t going to choose that hill to die on.” A very big deal if you lived through it and obvious why Ruger and NRA would like to forget about it.

[44 AMP]

Quote from Wikipedia:
William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions.

Yes, he is. Sadly he was, and is vilified for that, because both reporting of the times, and today "official" history leaves out important details. What Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story".

Here's what was left out. The way DC works. Congress, to save their own butts (and be seen as "doing something) was going to pass something. That part was a done deal, they WERE going to pass some kind of gun control law.

What Ruger did (and obviously to save his own business) was to give them an alternative to what they were seriously considering, at the time.

Congress was looking a out right banning of a number of firearms, and magazine capacity limits of 6 (SIX) or at most 7 (SEVEN) rounds. This would allow revolvers and the GI 1911A1. EVERYTHING else was at risk.

Ruger's proposal of 10 (TEN) as the limit was better for us, and particularly better for him, than what congress was planning to do, and while NONE of it should have happened, instead of blaming Ruger for the high capacity magazine ban we ought to be thankful, that because of his idea, which Congress accepted as a "reasonable compromise" we got to keep 10 rounders.

Of course this upset a lot of people. But if Ruger (or anyone else) hadn't proposed something a very anti gun Congress could accept, we would have been stuck with ever lower capacity restrictions.

Also, do note, that after the passage of the 94 AWB with all its limits, in the SUMMER of 94, that November, the Democrats lost their majority in Congress, something that they had held for the previous 40 years!

So blame Ruger for being a "traitor" if you want, the truth is, he did what he could to protect his business and his people, and if you think that was so wrong, think about where was everybody else, including the NRA...and where we would most likely be if no one had said anything and Congress just approved everything the anti's wanted at the time.

[Electrod47]

Oh Gee...Thanks for stirring the pot bro..on a dead man that brought many joy. But, obviously NOT to your fevered brow.

[JohnKSa]

I've bought and still own a lot of Ruger products and I appreciate Bill Ruger's positive contributions to the firearm industry in general. But that doesn't mean I'm ever going to forget his stance on magazine capacity.

It wasn't just that he backed the hi-cap mag ban, but also that he wouldn't sell hi-cap mags to people who bought his guns even before the AWB went into effect. I owned a Mini-14 before the AWB and Ruger wouldn't even sell me 10 round mags for it. If I wanted anything more than 5rnd mags, I had to go aftermarket.

[44 AMP]

Ruger made, and sold what Ruger wanted to. Ruger made 20rnd magazines for the Mini 14, but only sold them to Law Enforcement, and this was decades before the AWB, it was his choice.

Also note that while Bill Ruger Sr was alive and running the company, there were no Ruger compact pistols, neither revolver or semi auto.

They just weren't something he wanted to do. I don't agree with all his opinions on things but I do respect him for being his own master.

Right or wrong in our opinion didn't seem to matter a lot to him. That's a pretty rare thing these days, and people who do that generally aren't the most popular folks with everyone.

I've owned a couple dozen Rugers over the years, still have around a dozen or so, rifles and pistols, I've always been happy with them, though I'm not crazy about every feature of every gun, they have all been good solid quality, and value.

[georgehwbush]

hmmm well i've owned one ruger branded firearm and i don't much like it. it was to expensive. it was not well finished, had very sharp edges around the ejection port. i had to work on the mag to get it to feed correctly. and now you tell me why i just never liked ruger to start with... ok.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44caliberkid

I was reading the American Rifleman article chronicling Ruger’s 75 year anniversary and noticed this glaring omission. I realize it was intended to be a positive, feel good piece, but my long memory of Ruger always includes William Ruger’s self imposed magazine capacity ban and his public statement, “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun.”
Quote from Wikipedia:
William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions. Ruger proposed that instead of banning firearms, Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.[12] Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News in 1992 that "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun".[13][14] On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:
The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.[15]
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

I remember this very well, being a LE, recreational shooter and 2nd amendment activist at the time. Many people vowed to never buy another gun from the traitor Ruger and hated him the rest of his days. And anti gunners still use this quote against us more than 30 years later. I imagine many younger shooters are unaware of this act of treachery.

Well, in 1989 things were a lot different than now.

There's a lot more home invasions and car jackings involving groups of thugs attacking good citizens now.

Maybe Ruger's answer would be different today.

The whole issue is not really very relevant at this point.

[44caliberkid]

It is relevant, as we learn from history. It only takes one person, who is viewed as an authority, to fold for the whole thing to go to ������. Ask people in Oregon, Washington and California right now. Washington wants to ban your 5 shot, 12 gauge now, because the magazine will hold more than 10 shorty shells, violating their mag capacity law. I’m glad I live in a state that is expanding gun rights and not the state next door which is trying to register semiautomatic rifles.

[44 AMP]

Washington wants to ban your 5 shot, 12 gauge now, because the magazine will hold more than 10 shorty shells, violating their mag capacity law.

There are probably some people in WA (and in WA govt) who would like to do that, but there are no bills in the house proposing that at this time, and no one I talked to has even heard of the idea.

Additionally, the WA magazine capacity law only applies to detachable magazines and semi autos with them. The standard fixed tube magazine of a pump or semi auto shotgun is not covered under the law, no matter how many mini shells they can hold.

Right now, there are no gun control bills pending, as even the most radical anti gun people realize that pushing gun control in an election year hurts their interests.

[44caliberkid]

I heard it on the YouTube channel that is run by a Washington attorney who is a second amendment advocate.

[Jim Watson]

Ruger's proposal of 10 (TEN) as the limit was better for us,

As I recall, Ruger's proposal was for a 15 round limit which is just coincidentally the capacity of the P85-95 series. But Congress stabbed him in the back with 10.

[JohnKSa]

Well, if that's really how it played out, then he made his own bed--they used his quote instead of his recommendation.

“No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun.” --Bill Ruger Sr.

[georgehwbush]

either way; too much ammo == too heavy to carry it. if the mag isn't overloading the person it's not too big.