Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ruger Confounds Logic Sometimes

I recall an "Ask the President" deal where you could email in ideas, but don't recall a poll.

IIRC, many people emailed about wanting the silly bright bluing brought back, instead of the current useful matte finish. I wanted an extended safety for the Hawkeye.

I think the brand new Hawkeyes have the bright blue finish now instead of the matte.

I understand everything you're saying, John, but I still believe Ruger tripped on their dauber the way the 9,3X62 was introduced, then not delivered. You would think a manufacturer would think to get proof rounds lined up Before final production.

I also believe some of the market for the 9,3, albeit limited, wandered off to CZ out of frustration. Ruger's ducks were paddling all over puddles and not in a row.

I still thank them for this great 77 African 9,3X62 in my safe!

I can think of a few cartridges Ruger found room for over the not too distant past: 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 257 Roberts, 6.5 Swede, the HH, the Rigbone, the 405, the 450/400, 45 Colt, 45/70 and a few others.

The 9.3x62 perhaps wouldn't have set the world on fire, but it wouldn't be the first time that company did something worthwhile.

It seems their only true in house creation that won't go do-do is the 204.

About 35 or so years ago, Ruger announced a 12 gauge over-under which I dearly wanted. I waited for about 2 years and it still hadn't appeared, so I bought a Browning Citori Super Light in 12 gauge.

During the 2 year wait, the Browning's price went up considerably, but I bought it and have been very satisfied.

Ruger's reputation for announcing new products and delivering them is abysmal.

dmsbandit,

Ruger not only makes limited runs for Davidson's but Lipsey's--but the distributors pay for them, and thus take the financial risk.

The same thing is sometimes done with rifle scopes. For years quite a few people urged Leupold to bring back their 3x, but it didn't happen until SWFA said they'd buy a small run. Eventually Leupold agreed, and also offered the 3x as custom shop option. Despite all the people who said they'd buy an improved 3x, with click adjustments and multi-coated optics, sales haven't justified making it a standard item.

Once in a while a limited run proves popular enough for a company to make it a regular item, but not often.

What I saw was emails from Ruger over the last few years polling their customer's about potential variations for several guns, the last one being the LCR revolver. I distinctly remember saying hurray when their last survey asked for feedback on an LCR with an exposed hammer. But then maybe those emails only go to folks who sign on to Ruger's email list, and/or those who send routine messages via Ruger's 'Ask the President' webpage (I qualify on both counts).

Yeah, Ruger was real bad on delivering in the old days, but I believe that's changed drastically for the better since old Bill died. I can't think of any of their new models that haven't shown up at my local dealers within a very short time of their press announcements with the most recent ones being the LCR-X and the GP100 Match Champion.

Which is at least partly due to what I mentioned above, Ruger's recent emphasis on coordinating the engineering, production and marketing departments.

The most successful companies adapt and change. There are a bunch of examples of firms that didn't and died, including the original Redfield company. When I first started big game hunting in the 1960's, Redfields were considered one of the two best brands of American hunting scopes. A quarter-century later the company went out of business. The name has been sold several times since, most recently to the other company considered a top brand in the 60's, Leupold--a company that did adapt and change.

When in my 20's I hunted a lot with a much older guy who thought I was nuts for buying a .270 Winchester, because he'd owned one and couldn't find ammo. That was in the 1930's, about 35 years before I bought my .270. He also refused to buy Ford pickups because one broke down on him during a blizzard in the 1920's.

The word is full of people who'll tell you all Ruger No. 1's are inaccurate, all Fords break down constantly, all Japanese cars as cheap POS's, and all European optics are far superior to anything else--even though a lot of today's Euro-optics not only use glass from other parts of the world, but are MADE in other parts of the world.

I've read some astonishing things on this thread, including the implication that Ruger is nuts for offering a cheaper rifle to compete with their own good-selling bolt action. But the most successful and adaptable companies today, whether they make guns, vehicles or televisions, offer products for a wide variety of budgets, not just ONE product that doesn't change for decades.

John, I believe I remember reading (possibly something you wrote) that Ruger had changed to a manufacturing setup which allowed quick change between setups, allowing special runs without a lot of wasted time or expense.

The 9.3x62 was done in by the tremendous versatility of the 30-06!

Billy,

They have done that, and also have acquired an enormous number of sophisticated CNC machines in the past several years.

In fact all the successful factories I've visited in the past decade, whether large or small, have spent considerable time and money figuring out how to improve efficiency, not just by using CNC machines but by spending less time and energy simply moving parts along the line, as well as both parts and complete products within the factory. At the same time the products are generally of better quality, whether firearms, optics or bullets.

One of the things I've found most astonishing is the basic quality the new generation of "cheap" rifles. I bought a new Ruger 77 .30-06 on sale just before the hunting season of 1983 for a little over $300. Inflation has changed prices considerably since then, but Ruger Americans were on sale locally for basically the same price this past fall. No, they don't have walnut stocks, but Americans shoot at least as well and usually better than the 77's of 30 years ago, partly because Ruger makes some of the best barrels on American factory rifles. The Americans also weigh considerably less than a 1983 77, and have truly adjustable triggers and SOFT recoil pads.

I'm about to buy another, probably a .243.

I've owned 2 RAR's in 243 and they were both extremely accurate. Same goes for the 223. I'm awaiting the stainless version due out next month to outfit the kids. They need a couple compacts and I'll pick up a full size model for my fun.

One thing seldom mentioned about Ruger rifles is their throating....243 in particular. I've always been able to designate the jump without the mag box limiting my options.

You are probably correct and I'm just misremembering it. I do recall checking off the things I'd prefer to see and sending it to them, but forget if it was a poll on their website or an email.

In either case, though, I thought it was good of Ruger to reach out and ask us.

IIRC the final death knell for Redfield was that the EPA ordered them to clean up some ponds on their site that were polluted? Is that correct John? Or is my memory faulty. The cleanup costs were in the millions. Rather than cleanup, Redfield filed for bankruptcy.

Yep, I ordered an XGI.

Luv2safari - " There was also a bit of propensity to misfire, ".

Would you care to expand on that thought for me? I've two (2) 9.3x62mm's - a Ruger 77 African and a CZ550 American. They both went bang every time I squeezed the trigger. No FTF issues either...I must have have missed that class on misfires sometime in the past few years. Thanks, Homesteader.

John,

Maybe you missed my point which is:

Ruger is not offering the improvements built into the cheaper American series for their higher dollar, front-line, bolt guns. In essence, Ruger penalizes you for paying more for an item!

I actually commend Ruger for making a very decent entry level rifle that offers some who cannot afford the ever rising cost of getting into hunting/shooting while still making a profit. Stiffing their current customer base is the issue I intended to raise.

1B

Yes. What is that? Head space?

That's what I've noticed as well. Companies are adapting to a changing market and are smarter/more efficient with their production lines. Ruger took a bit longer to get there than Savage or Rem, but it's really working to their advantage.

Here's part of an article I wrote in 2008. It was written tongue in cheek, but reflected the changing nature of off the shelf hunting rifles. Shooters were suggesting that companies "cheaped out", using substandard parts, inexpensive off shore labor and slipshod manufacturing short cuts. Oddly, budget rifles shoot fairly well these daze. If your grandfather shot a Savage Axis or Ruger American, he may have tossed his Winchester Model 70.

---
from Internet Rifle Accuracy
- 2008, Stephen Redgwell

...Despite manufacturing short cuts, poor quality control and the increased use of polymers, groups have continued to shrink. Strange isn't it? Regardless of the complaints from hunters and shooters about crappy, flexible stocks, heavy, lawyer proof triggers and so-so stock/action fit, I keep reading about out of the box accuracy being better than ever before. I read this stuff on hunting and shooting forums...on the Internets.

Some might say that you can't have it both ways. Someone must be telling fibs 'cause you cannot have poorly made, butt ugly, ill fitting rifles that shoot better groups than competition rifles!

Some might also say that at the rate we're going, we should be bug holing with econo-guns by the end of the decade. It sure looks that way. It also seems that we'll be doing it with 10 lb trigger pulls, using assemblies made from pot metal parts, housed in ugly, limp and shoddily made plastic stocks. All this will be attached to less metallic versions of traditional rifle actions, assembled by numpties, using poorly constructed, off shore parts. Wow!
---

Many people don't like to admit it, but std rifles are shooting better. I will go out on a limb and say that they are a better value too. They just aren't the pretty, deeply blued, wood stocked pieces of the past. People have to remember that wood stocks used to be the norm, but not anymore. Synthetic stocks are cheaper and easier to make. They are also less affected by the weather. If you spent time in the service, you'll appreciate that plastic stocks get the job done in any climate. They just aren't as warm and cuddly as the rifles of old.

Adjustable triggers are easier to manufacture and are the norm these days - like air conditioning or power windows in a vehicle. They used to be expensive options, but come standard in most cars now.

To borrow from Bob Dylan, a 50 year old song he wrote describes things best.

excerpt from The Times They Are a-Changin'
- 1963, Bob Dylan

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'
---

The times, they still are a-changin'...