revhigh said:
It's still extremely suspicious that Ruger designs a SA that matches the criteria for the govt tests almost exactly ... And then doesn't submit it. Why would you do that unless you KNEW BEFOREHAND that it would fail certain required criteria, and that an announced failure would hamper sales more so than just not submitting it at all.
REV
I think that there is a lot more to the story about why Ruger did not submit their gun for approval than the pistol design.
Conjecture: There is a LOT of procedural crap and hidden expenses when selling anything to the government. They may have started down the road to design the gun using the govt spec and found this out. At that point Ruger concluded they had a pretty good pistol and it would be perfect for the civilian market (lucky us!) instead of dealing with the government.
So you are saying they started a massive company wide undertaking without having their extensive legal department look into the ramifications of this? That conjecture is a big slam to Ruger, as that is awful business. YOu lose your shirt doing that type of stuff. Ruger is a better run company than that. Beside, they got far enough down the road to mass produce... I highly doubt only then they looked at the fine print.
Conjecture: Selling a firearm to the government is about politics as much as it is about the design and performance. The military may have already decided on what they wanted before the trials and would be just going through the motions with the whole approval process. Ruger found this out and decided that the hassle and expense just wasn't worth it.
This is more plausible... but, if their weapon was far superior then the political weapon that actually gets chosen, why bow out of the trials? Why would anyone skip that free publicity and marketing opportunity? Of course, if in your own test you found that your weapon was subpar and wouldn't come close to making the cut, the brilliant move would being the first company going to market with a weapon made for the trials. Brand it as the Ruger American, with a picture of the flag behind it... big press... and push it to your very loyal fan base (who are mostly still in love with your revolvers) as the semi auto solution for all those revolvers guys... a single action revolver type gun with only a trigger safety. Fully cocked with no lock... just like the revolver guys like it.
Conjecture: For any manufacturing company it is dangerous to have any one customer be a large percentage of sales. Life is good when the very large customer is sending in those big orders but it is devastating when those orders stop. Example: Colt and AR-15 sales to the military. Ruger may have decided to avoid the risk and get the sales from the civilian market instead.
Again, that would be very very poor business to make that decision after years and untold monies of research... to the point where the firearm is now mass produceable, including retooling you machining to fit it. Ruger is a very smart sales and branding company, far too smart for either 1 or 3 of your conjectures.
Could be a lot more reasons.
Can I ask you a question that I am really seriously asking... how is it that you could literally entertain the above notions (which edge on the side of far fetched at times) and not even consider that Ruger realized there product was subpar for the government trials and made a very smart and savvy business decision? I'm just happy we have the opportunity to buy the Ruger American. It's on my list.
Cordite
