So much for the promise Ruger will fix their firearms

[RsqVet]

I'm sorry but I have a little bit of a hard time swallowing a claim of the gun was never 100% yet I put 25 to 50 k through it... at 6 dollars a box that is 3 to 6k in ammo. So why would one waste more good ammo after more good ammo on a gun that was not 100%? It really does not stand to reason and I have met a ton of people who have had bad guns, guns they hated, guns they love to come on here and tell the world just how bad they were... not one of these people myself included with my lemon guns suffered through 25k or 50k rounds with a gun that was not 100%.

Second, just exactly what is your expectation in regard to Ruger and the service on your gun? That when you purchase a gun it will be fixed for free, now and forever regardless of round count, age or anything else? All revolvers will go out of time, so is a company to replace or repair them for the life of the owner? The gun?

Third what it sounds like it your gun has enough parts determined to be out of spec by Ruger that they determined that a new gun would be more cost effective for you. Remember ruger is looking to put the gun as factory new so they may want to replace things you have not considered... say you need a new barrel and cylinder at 150 dollars each, that's 300 right there, then labor, then a re-blue if it's a carbon steel gun and or springs and lock work pieces and one can see how it could get to be cheaper to offer you a new gun. Which by the way is something most of us here would be happy with rather than a rebuilt one that still has 25-50 k on whatever parts are left in it... this is a shooter after all right? Not some gun a family member carried through a war somewhere right?

Lastly have you called their bluff yet rather than posting here? It's not over until it's over so what happens if you tell them to send your gun back? They can't not make you whole and may not want to send a out of spec gun back so maybe the story changes. Rather than report here i would be working with them. Lastly if you really want it, this gun you have right and ruger will not, send it to a smith and pay the bill. Might be more than that 389 ruger offered you and still it's a gun that has 25-50k on the clock.

[Cheapshooter]

Let me get this straight. If someone posts about a warranty problem wit Taurus, it "yeah, Taurus junk, poor service, you should have bought a ______". But let someone mention one of the "accepted" brands, and the OP is told he is a fool, and should shut up and go away.
I'm not knocking Ruger, I have a couple and am quite happy with them. It just seems like a lot of hypocrisy. Especially when I have read posts saying " I have xx,xxx rounds through my -----, you should have spent more, and not gotten a _______, and you wouldn't be having this problem"!
A lot of other gun companies have a written warranty. Ruger does not because they have a staff of lawyers that tell them not to, same as the bill boards written on the sides of their guns!

[TennJed]

Since Smith has a warranty, I expect my next purchases will be Smith

S&W warranty states:

"We will repair any defect in material or workmanship without charge to the original purchaser for as long as you own the handgun"

Would S&W consider a gun with 37,500 rounds to have a defect in material or workmanship, or would they consider it normal wear and tear? If there was a defect from the begining should that not be brought to the companies attention at that point?

[C0untZer0]

If a Hi-Point or a Taurus had 50K rounds and malfunctioned and the company refused to replace the firearm, I can't imagine too many people coming to the defense of either of those companies.

But if you impune Ruger in any way - look out !

"Your expectations are out of wack, you're asking too much, your story sounds fishy... you should be happy with what they offered..."

[FrankenMauser]

If Ruger says they won't repair it, and they're offering you their "at cost" replacement option.... That means they consider the GP to be unsafe.

Take them up on the offer.
Or...
Have them send it back to you, so you can have your own 'smith fix it up.

Your choice.
Don't get angry at Ruger, though. If they won't fix it, they consider it unsafe. (And there was a REASON you were willing to shell out $78 to ship it, while knowing they might not fix it; wasn't there... )

[comn-cents]

So I did a quick check and if you shot 25000 rounds that would cost $9000
Really, if you shoot a gun to the point that it is unsafe to fix why should they fix it?
They don't have a warranty, I find it hard to believe that you have shot $9000 or $18000 worth of ammo through a gun and are complaining about get a new one at cost. I don't care who the manufacture is! It seems to be beyond repair, kind of like your complaining.

[Walklightly]

So much for the promise Ruger will fix their firearms

Are you trying to deface the name of Ruger?

I'm speechless. What the heck did Ruger promise you after 150,000 rounds, or 10,000 rounds, or maybe 25-50k?

Like I said, I'm speechless.

I don't take offense except your ignorant statements! But hey, I don't love Ruger either, but I would not come on the "Internet" and try to deface a reputable (Not just USA) gun company.

[Shane Tuttle]

It goes down as living proof that no matter how great a company treats their customers, you'll never EVER satisfy them all. Most others have already posted what I would say and this is where I leave it.

Originally Posted by C0untZer0

If a Hi-Point or a Taurus had 50K rounds and malfunctioned and the company refused to replace the firearm, I can't imagine too many people coming to the defense of either of those companies.
But if you impune Ruger in any way - look out !
"Your expectations are out of wack, you're asking too much, your story sounds fishy... you should be happy with what they offered..."

Originally Posted by Cheapshooter

Let me get this straight. If someone posts about a warranty problem wit Taurus, it "yeah, Taurus junk, poor service, you should have bought a ______". But let someone mention one of the "accepted" brands, and the OP is told he is a fool, and should shut up and go away.
I'm not knocking Ruger, I have a couple and am quite happy with them. It just seems like a lot of hypocrisy. Especially when I have read posts saying " I have xx,xxx rounds through my -----, you should have spent more, and not gotten a _______, and you wouldn't be having this problem"!

And the only response I'm going to say is I'm sorry you don't see the key variables when it comes to knowing the difference in the companies and their products.

Now, back to the topic at hand...unfortunately....

[Shadi Khalil]

25k to 50k is a pretty large variance. Maybe you need to call and speak with a higher up?

[madcratebuilder]

Unbelievable!

[ScotchMan]

This is an interesting thread. I kind of see both sides of the argument. On one hand, after shooting 25-50k rounds (again that is a huge variance, why can't we lock that down to a more precise number), I'd be thinking about putting the gun away as a souvenir and finding something new. Ruger's offer to sell you a new one at cost is much more than they're obligated to do, as they have no warranty. Additionally, you modified the gun, which would void any actual warranty if they had one. Most warranties also carry a condition of "ordinary use" which you arguably have exceeded. All in all, not a bad deal, you've gotten your money's worth out of the gun.

On the other hand, Ruger does have a reputation of standing behind their products no matter what. I would not be surprised to have read that they sent you the new gun for free. When buying a Ruger, its not crazy to go into it with the expectation that you will have a gun to shoot for the rest of your life without spending any more money, because Ruger will fix any problems that come up.

So like I said, I can see both sides of the argument. I think what it ultimately comes down to is a black and white look at the facts. You have a 10 year old gun that you have shot many, many times its worth in ammo, which you modified without Ruger, and they are offering you a new one for essentially for free when you look at it in context of what you got out of the last one. They aren't obligated to do ANYTHING. The fact that the gun hasn't been reliable for the last 10 years doesn't factor in unless you got Ruger involved before, otherwise that's on you. If you are really that bitter, take the new one and trade it on a Smith.

Personally I'd be surprised if you got 25k-50k through a modified Smith and then got the same offer from them when it started acting up.

[rclark]

I look at it like buying a car. After 10 years, do you expect the company to fix it to factory specs? Think not. Or buying a toaster and after 5 years the heat element breaks... Do you go back to K-Mart and ask for a new one .. for free? Nope (well, I wouldn't). Also sounds like the gun was used as a 'race' gun (used in speed contests). Revolvers, after all, are just a hunk of metal and do wear out. Either time to buy a new one, or have a gun smith replace the worn parts. Simple solution to me. Now if just out of the box, and I found a problem, I'd expect to get it fixed....

[treg]

"Beyond economical repair" is the term that probably best describes your pistol.
You wore it out.

Ruger is going above and beyond the call of duty with the offer of a new pistol probably at or close to their cost. Not many companies in any industry will do that.

[MLeake]

From the way you have described the gun, they may also view this as mostly deliberately self-inflicted by owner.

[johnbt]

"I never expected they won't keep their promise to fix anything sent to them. "

Ruger never promised anybody any such thing.
The actual waranty has already been posted.

My guess as a Ruger owner since 1972 is that they might replace a gun for free if they determine that it failed due a manufacturing defect, but not if the gun is simply worn out.

John

[Clifford L. Hughes]

Redbeard55:


Are you giving us all of the facts? In my twenty years of selling guns I sent only a few to Ruger for repair and they were always returned expediently and always repaired. I sent my own Ruger Single Six that I purchased in 1956 for the up grade kit and the replacement of a broken trigger. I had cold blued and sanded the finish from the aluminum grip. The revolver was ugly. Ruger not only modified the pistol to safe condition but they also reblued the revolver and replaced the aluminum grip frame: the gun looks new. I have a few thousands of rounds shot through this pistol, not 25 or 50 K.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Rretired

[jknight8907]

Redbeard55:


Are you giving us all of the facts? In my twenty years of selling guns I sent only a few to Ruger for repair and they were always returned expediently and always repaired. I sent my own Ruger Single Six that I purchased in 1956 for the up grade kit and the replacement of a broken trigger. I had cold blued and sanded the finish from the aluminum grip. The revolver was ugly. Ruger not only modified the pistol to safe condition but they also reblued the revolver and replaced the aluminum grip frame: the gun looks new. I have a few thousands of rounds shot through this pistol, not 25 or 50 K.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Rretired

There's a difference in Ruger fulfilling what's essentially a recall on non-hammer block models and throwing in a little extra work, and sending in a gun that is completely worn out in all respects after a lifetime of heavy use, and expecting a new gun for free. That would be like driving your car for 200k miles and complaining that the manufacturer didn't then give you a brand new one for free.

[Lzwo]

When buying a Ruger, its not crazy to go into it with the expectation that you will have a gun to shoot for the rest of your life without spending any more money, because Ruger will fix any problems that come up.

I also find this to be a very interesting thread, one that's caused me to question my own assumptions. I was reading another post about "which is stronger, Ruger vs. Smith" and for me the take-away is that both will last longer than a lifetime. I've always thought this - just assumed I'll shoot my brand/model X forever.

I've also always implicitly assumed that if I ever have a problem, I'll send it back to the company and they'll fix it for free. Forever. Past my lifetime. Even if I've "worn it out" by shooting Y number of rounds.

As a result of this post, I'm questioning that assumption. When is it unreasonable to expect a company to fix something for free? Is it number of years? Number of rounds fired? What about my Security Six, for which some parts are no longer available? What happens then? Is there a difference in wearing out my grandfather's colt vs. his craftsman wrenches? If so, why?

So, I sort of thank the OP for this thread - its got me thinking about what my expectations really are, and whether they are reasonable or not. Not that it makes any difference to me, really. I'm still going to buy some more Rugers. And Smiths. And heck, when the price is right, probably some Rossii and Taruii and maybie even a Jiminez or two, just for variety.

[rclark]

When is it unreasonable to expect a company to fix something for free?

I think we all have our own idea .... But if I wear a tool out, I buy a new one. If parts start to wear, but still a serviceable tool, I'll have the part replaced on my nickel. Number of years has nothing to do with it. If the tool 'breaks' because of a defect, then I expect the company to handle the problem. If the front sight is tilted to the left, I expect the company to handle it. If I use the gun as club and the front sight falls off, I will pay to have it fixed.... When the bolt ears broke off on my older Mark II, Ruger fixed it for free with a new solid bolt (I payed shipping one way). I don't know about you guys, but I have a pretty clear idea of when a company should step up and when not.

When I say, my Ruger revolvers will last a lifetime or two, I feel they will. I don't shoot mine enough to wear them all out. Spread out my shooting. I also don't abuse my guns by fanning my guns, I don't do quick draw, shoot super hot loads, or try to get 6 shots off in .02 seconds....

[Wyoredman]

Seems to me that the "something for nothing" mentality is taking hold here.

How come old Colt SAA's are worth so much these days? Because there aren't many left! I mean, they only cost a few bucks back in 1900? Could it be that they were worn out from use and replaced? If Colt would have repaired every SAA that was worn out, there would be tens of thousands of them still around, right? People bought a new gun when the old one wore out. They didn't expect Colt to fix their gun or give them another SAA!

So, fast forward to 2012. We now expect Ruger (or any other manufacture) to replace every worn out gun that is sent to them?

Things sure have changed in 110 years!

-EDIT- : I wonder how many rounds original SAA's shot before they broke?

[Pond, James Pond]

As someone who has recently bought a Ruger, I find this thread interesting, although I'll be a lot greyer by the time I have shot even 15K through that gun, let alone 50K!!

There is one question I would ask the OP regarding this situation.
What did the Ruger Customer Care correspondence actually say, verbatim, or as near as.

Given the things at stake for you and them, I would expect more than a simple: "We don't want to fix it, how about this one for pennies?"

They must have given reasons as to a) why they decided working on your gun was not an option, and b) why they felt the offer of a SP101 (presumably) at a knock down price was a viable solution.

What were these reasons?

[Slamfire]

In my opinion, 25K to 50K rounds of 38's is not excessive in a revolver. Maybe the springs will need changing but it should not be worn out now.

I called S&W and some of their K frames were up to 250K rounds at training academies. Probably a bit worn in the throat, but still banging away.

I think they should have offered you a new one, for free.

[Young.Gun.612]

So the moral of the story is you:

1: modified the revolver
2: shot up to 50K rounds through it
3: got ****** when they offered you a brand new replacement at half price

Man, i would love it if GM offered me a brand new Regal at half price to replace my Riviera when I drive the wheels off it...

(you do see how silly that is, right?)

[MLeake]

It seems to me that in Post 1, the OP indicated there was a B/C gap irregularity that he noticed after purchase, and which Ruger fixed, for free, as expected. Otherwise, in Post 1, the OP said,

The only work I did was replace a couple of springs with lighter springs. Revolver was still essentially stock.

But then, in Post 17, the OP added a bit to this...

I expected to pay for the springs I replaced and the pin the gunsmith lost that holds the grip in place. I had substituted a bolt I cut down to the proper size, The cylinder was polished out by a gunsmith because it was so rough you could hardly push out mid range 38 Specials. Certainly didn't expect to pay full retail for repairs.

The boldface is mine.

Like I said, Ruger received a medium-high round count gun that had outside work done on it. Not sure what reasonable expectation anybody should have that a manufacturer will do ANY warranty work at that point, let alone a full replacement.

And, if I were Ruger CS, I wouldn't even offer the at-cost replacement.

[kinggabby]

So the moral of the story is you:

1: modified the revolver
2: shot up to 50K rounds through it
3: got ****** when they offered you a brand new replacement at half price

Man, i would love it if GM offered me a brand new Regal at half price to replace my Riviera when I drive the wheels off it...

(you do see how silly that is, right?)

Nope we don't see how silly it is. Don't you see we live in the I want for free generation and if you expect to pay for something you are wrong. But seriously I agree how can anyone expect something new for something worn out? As stated over and over Ruger has no written warranty. And under most situation as I have seen posted Ruger has taken care of their customers. But once you wear it out then it is on you to either pay to have it fixed or purchase a new one. And if your claims are true that they offered you a new one for under $400 you would have to be nuts not to accept the offer. They could have told you no and not offer anything at all. Just my .02 worth