View Single Post
Old May 6, 2013, 09:25 AM   #65
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
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.

Last edited by L_Killkenny; May 6, 2013 at 09:32 AM.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Page generated in 0.04347 seconds with 7 queries