View Full Version : Rifle Stocks

April 11, 2005, 09:37 PM
Why doesn't Ruger off "after market" stock in [that green stuff that begins with a Z] for all their rifles?

April 11, 2005, 09:47 PM
Ruger is managed by folks that don't particularly care what their customers want.

No high capacity magazines, no synthetic stocks on many models. I guess they're more interested in being politically correct and traditional than they are in their bottom line. :rolleyes:

April 11, 2005, 09:54 PM
Isn't their 'bottom line' always in the black?
Aren't they the largest gunmaker in America?

April 12, 2005, 07:15 AM
yeah, i don't see ruger hurting for money either. and that crap about their guns not coming in a synthetic stock.... that's total bs. i've seen 10/22s at wally world with BLACK SYNTHETIC stocks.

and besides, there are tons of aftermarket stocks you can buy for thier weapons.

April 12, 2005, 09:47 AM
"Isn't their 'bottom line' always in the black?"

Their entire expansion over the first 50 years or so of their existance was self financed. In other words, they never borrowed any money. None, zip, nada cent. I'd say Mr. Ruger was doing something right.


April 12, 2005, 10:21 AM
I dunno, why doesn't Remington offer an 870 with a purple fiberglass stock?

MY guess is they don't want to or don't see a market.

And I would believe that most people don't care one way or another about Ruger's politics.

The word you are looking for it probably Zytel?

April 12, 2005, 12:52 PM
The founder of Sturm, Ruger, Bill Ruger (deceased), was always very opinionated on what he was willing to offer. He snorted at the idea of a 10mm pistol, because no one "needed" one, but said he was ALWAYS going to offer the Ruger Old Army .44 cap and ball, because he liked it, and anyone who wanted to shoot a percussion six-shooter for non reenactment recreation should pick the best one, which was his.

He thought the .44 Magnum was an efficient killer of deer sized game all out of proportion to its ballistics, hence three different rifles are chambered for the .44 Magnum.

He also crossed swords with the late Neal Knox on firearms legislation, with Mr. Ruger believing that compromises could be worked out with gun grabbers that would be "reasonable(?)" to both sides, such as limits on high capacity magazines.

I am surprised he caved in on moving the safety on the Ruger 77 from top tang to a three-position Winchester clone, as I thought that was a step back.

April 12, 2005, 04:14 PM
When the sharks come in, the all come in. When we became a law-suit society, things changed for the worst. This is one of the reasons they changed to the three position safety. As to Mr Ruger caving in to the gun grabbers, I think he did what he felt was necessary to stay alive in business, right or wrong as it is. Smith&Wesson did the exact same thing and now look at their sales. As to the stock question, Ruger allows many manufacturers to do aftermarket parts for their guns. They have never worried about it much, but they will never do more than they already have with the black synthetic stocks. They were a died in the wool old school gun company. I don't see that changing much other than using more and more sheet stampings as they can.