Ruger won't return gun . . . really

the factory certainly will NOT tell any of us, its between them and the dealer and apparently he don't care, got his "brand new" gun, but I still wonder, if the person who was originally going to buy the gun, from the dealer ( owner), and requested that it be sent back, for the 'safety update' what is he now getting ????HHHmmmm........ :?


reminds me of some of the guns over the years we had refinished, and you should have seen how BAD the castings were on some of those early ,low ( 2 and 3 digit) guns...wish I had taken pictures, both of our gunsmiths were amazed that these guns ever "passed" or were allowed to be shipped, let alone use the frame castings, that's how bad they were ....wished I had taken pictures of some of those anomalies back then, but hey, not our guns, we did what the customer wanted, and they probably will never be used ( shot) anyway. I KNOW those guns would never have been returned.......... 8)
For you "inquiring minds", these had VAST "casting flaws", mainly "voids" where metal SHOULD have been on the insides of the cylinder frames... :roll:
****which also can happen if you improperly "color case HARDEN" 4140 chrome-moly steel and it may become brittle and crumbles :shock:

The guy who wanted the gun but insisted it be sent in for "conversion" is not interested in the New Model replacement. He wanted an Old Model.

The New Model is for sale at the shop.

What a total bummer . . . in more ways than one.

Man, that is to bad. Hind sight is 20/20, but the shop should have insisted on the customer to buy the gun. Then it is up to the buyer to send it in and he be the 'contact' with Ruger once it was received. Shop is out of it. He can send the gun directly to Ruger himself or have the shop do it for a shipping charge.... Anyway Hind sight is 20/20. Of course if I was the buyer, I'd NOT want the stupid "so called" safety conversion done in the first place!

Probably right, but the customer is a close buddy of the shop owner so the shop owner agreed to do his buddy a favor. And as we all know, no good turn goes unpunished.

The question of how this was all mis-handled at Ruger still rankles, but I doubt we'll ever know what really happened at that end.

:?

Simply said it is not a god transaction. I would never send one back for a conversion
Now that just carves it in stone. Never Ever send one Back! ps

powder smoke said:

Simply said it is not a god transaction. I would never send one back for a conversion
Now that just carves it in stone. Never Ever send one Back! ps

Click to expand...

. . . particularly if it's a really, really nice convertible . . .


:roll:

While better communication from Ruger would have been nice, if there was something seriously dangerous with the gun isn't it best they got it out of circulation?
They are thinking liability, while many are thinking it's my property and I would want it back. The owner agreed with the swap.
If it were my gun I would personally like to hear why they wanted to keep it. I appreciate the truth from a company even if they tell me we screwed up when we made it.

He "agreed with the swap" because it was his only option.

He was never told what was "wrong" with the gun.

And the swap was dependent upon him returning the 9mm cylinder, as well.

Still smells bad to me.

JMHO

Ale-8(1) said:

Still smells bad to me.

Click to expand...

And that stench isn't going to go away for a long time either.

As a sort-of post-script to this matter, I'll add that during the ongoing discussion I received a couple of PM's from a forum member who apparently had knowledge of it up front, including the serial number. I have no idea of what "connection" he had, apparently at The Factory, but it made me even more certain that there's something fishy here. I chose not to include this info earlier in the interest of not interfering with the "swap" offered in exchange for the "unsafe to fire" Old Model convertible involved.

In the past I have been one of those who pooh-poohed the idea that you might lose a gun by returning it to The Factory. No more, however. I would never recommend this now, under any circumstances, if the gun in question is any of the Old Models. I suppose if you had a run-of-the-mill New Model with a problem there'd be no huge loss if a comparable piece were offered AT NO CHARGE in a similar situation, but that would have to be up to the individual.

I have lost a considerable amount of respect for the "New Ruger, Inc".

:x :x :x

Ale-8(1) said:

As a sort-of post-script to this matter, I'll add that during the ongoing discussion I received a couple of PM's from a forum member who apparently had knowledge of it up front, including the serial number. I have no idea of what "connection" he had, apparently at The Factory, but it made me even more certain that there's something fishy here. I chose not to include this info earlier in the interest of not interfering with the "swap" offered in exchange for the "unsafe to fire" Old Model convertible involved.

In the past I have been one of those who pooh-poohed the idea that you might lose a gun by returning it to The Factory. No more, however. I would never recommend this now, under any circumstances, if the gun in question is any of the Old Models. I suppose if you had a run-of-the-mill New Model with a problem there'd be no huge loss if a comparable piece were offered AT NO CHARGE in a similar situation, but that would have to be up to the individual.

I have lost a considerable amount of respect for the "New Ruger, Inc".

:x :x :x

Click to expand...

That forum member ought to send a letter to CEO using ask the CEO. If indeed there is something fishy, I'm sure he would love to know and would take action. I have first hand knowledge of employee theft and it was not taken lightly but that was many years ago. Still Mike P seems like a forthright person would would do a thorough investigation

Ale-8(1) said:

A possibility has been suggested that we have not considered, me included.

What's the chance that there was some tiny, hidden flaw in this apparently pristine gun that prompted the "unsafe to fire, will not be returned" reaction on the part of Ruger?

:? :?: :?

Click to expand...

If the gun was unsafe to shoot, why did Ruger want the 9M cylinder? Did they also want the original box and paperwork that came with the gun?

I posted this before I read the entire thread and saw that this question had already been asked. But I still would like to know the answer. Why did they need the 9M cylinder when you would expect that they would be destroying the unsafe gun.

It still sounds like someone appropriated the revolver somewhere along the line. And what's worse is that it sounds like they're going to get away with it. I sure hope that is not the case, but who knows. The only thing that I do know is that something sure smells to high heaven on this deal.

caryc said:

Ale-8(1) said:

A possibility has been suggested that we have not considered, me included.

What's the chance that there was some tiny, hidden flaw in this apparently pristine gun that prompted the "unsafe to fire, will not be returned" reaction on the part of Ruger?

:? :?: :?

Click to expand...

If the gun was unsafe to shoot, why did Ruger want the 9M cylinder? Did they also want the original box and paperwork that came with the gun?

I posted this before I read the entire thread and saw that this question had already been asked. But I still would like to know the answer. Why did they need the 9M cylinder when you would expect that they would be destroying the unsafe gun.

Click to expand...

Cary, that's the sole question . . . and IMHO the answer is pretty obvious.

:roll:


PS . . . Another attempt? http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=203034

Seems someone should ask for the disposition of the returned gun............. :roll:

I agree that a simple, POLITE email to Mr. Fifer in the "Ask the CEO" section would be a good idea. BUT, it would need to come from someone who was actually involved, and knew the serial number & details. That way, Mr. Fifer could do an actual follow-up, properly.
He seems like the kind of "no nonsense" type of guy from the many times I've spoken with him.

.357 w/ 6 1/2" barrel serial #30-61357. Sounds like someone wanted a "special" gun. Or, am I the only one who sees some significance in this?

The fact that it was a really nice Old Model convertible would be of interest to many.

Thr "357" in the serial number might add interest to some.

I've stirred this pot as much as I'm comfortable with. The "principals" involved are not interested in pursuing it further. If someone were to send a link to this thread to Mr. Fifer, I'd not care . . . but it's not my gun and i'll not push the issue. I posted this info for the benefit of those considering returning any Old Model to The Factory for any reason.

Personally, none of mine will ever "go home" for any reason.

:roll:

I'm a share holder. I'll do it

contender said:

I agree that a simple, POLITE email to Mr. Fifer in the "Ask the CEO" section would be a good idea. BUT, it would need to come from someone who was actually involved, and knew the serial number & details. That way, Mr. Fifer could do an actual follow-up, properly.
He seems like the kind of "no nonsense" type of guy from the many times I've spoken with him.

Click to expand...

For now, I would not put stock in a "Fifer Answer". I have sent him three of those CEO opportunities and even his staff has not replied.......I remain less than impressed. :roll: