Quote:
|
Well you started off OK, since Ruger states in it's own company literature that it does not deem its patents critical to core business success...hence it does do a lot of copying. You blew it with the "abomination" statement. Just which of Ruger's products do you include in that category ?
|
Pinned (no screws), Transfer-bar single actions. Terrible triggers compared to the three-screws...should have left well enough alone.
The original .44 Carbine that would fire before the bolt locked-up and had to be discontinued. The should have copied the U.S. M1 Carbine design, but adapted for the .44magnum.
Ugly and prone to damage due to short-stroking, LCR.
Redhawk, ugly as sin.
Their 9MM autos, all homely and no improvement, and not as good as the Browning HP, but sure uglier.
Too troublesome to take-down MkII .22 Autos.
MkII M77's, horrible, non-adjustable trigger with a "clever" design attempt to keep from being modified ("ears" cast into the bottom of the action). Such a poor trigger that Ruger dropped it in favor of one that can be adjusted.
There was nothing wrong with the original adjustable M77 trigger and its safety behind the tang.
Several of their lower end guns: Dyed, light-colored hard wood stocks instead of plain-Jane American walnut. Changing from steel butt plates to plastic butt plates on the Ruger No.3's proving that the Ruger designers have no concept of what constitutes a pleasing design.
Addendum: Good Rugers... The Ruger Number 1's, an absolutely beautiful rifle. However, pretty much another copy, i.e., Farquharson. Unlike their abominations, the Number 1 (as far as I know), has not been changed since they introduced it.