Guess I'm a nitpicker

azleite said:

I'm not savvy on how to delete posts, if a moderator should see this I would appreciate it if they would delete this entire topic. I've learned my lesson & I do realize I opened myself up to all this.My fault-never again.

Click to expand...

Ah, don't give up on us yet. Some of us are supportive.

What is poor workmanship to some is a non-issue to others.

Personally, a random buff job on a stainless revolver may not bother me as much as it may bother the next guy, but I believe Ruger banks on all the folks that will defend the poor workmanship. Gee. Ya spent only $700 and you expect every Monday or Friday gun to look like a gun made on Wednesday? That is a cop out, and if this was Ruger's business model in 1949 and thru the next decades, they would not be as successful as they are.

Rossi and Taurus come to mind. I don't own them. For the same reasons you've discovered with your Ruger. But folks then think it's okay for Ruger to cut the same corners.

Finally, if Ruger cannot afford to spend an extra couple minutes on fit and finish, or other quality control, maybe they oughta raise their prices a little bit, and spend just a little more time.

I would further offer this...If Ruger offered a premier grade in any of their offerings, with better polishing and/or bluing, and with a truly fitted stock or grips, and for arguments sake, it cost $200 more, but, you still had the option of purchasing the standard grade, would they sell enough of the nicer guns to be worth while?

The Remington 870 comes to mind. I believe it to be the best shotgun ever. Nice wood and lustrous bluing. I've owned many. But for half the price, the Express model with a very rough utility finish is the only 870 model I now own. And it's not just because it was much cheaper, but because it's a shotgun that I just never have to worry about, in the harshest of conditions.

WAYNO.

Well, gun sales will be slowing down and undoubtedly production will too, so maybe the managers can have their workers pay more attention to the finishing process - and the inspectors will have more time to do their jobs.

FWIW - The Talo Edition New Vaquero I bought three months ago has extremely good fit & finish - couldn't be happier. Same with my Super Blackhawk purchased one year ago which is flawless. Maybe I was lucky, or are the defective guns really that common? Complaints about every brand seems to be widespread on these Internet forums.

Has anyone done a customer satisfaction survey recently?

Used to have a saying at our shop: "That gun is guaranteed right up to the front door."

Ruger is a machine shop producing products at a profit, nothing more. What changed since you bought it?

It would be interesting to know the percentage of guns Ruger sees on a return-for-repair basis.

We see posts from folks who for one reason or another are unhappy with their guns, and I'll give most of them the benefit of the doubt and say they have a justifiable complaint . . . most, not all.

What we don't see is what I would believe to be a true picture, that is, posts from all the folks who are quite happy with their Rugers. I'd bet they would be much higher in proportion to the complaints.

JMHO

Back in the '80s Colt ran into problems and marketed a half-baked version of their stalwart, ho-hum Trooper revolver with a phosphate coating over a wire-brush finish. Easily the crappiest-looking (non-military) fugliest Colt ever sold. Retailers had trouble selling them for $269, and I bought two NIB for less.
Today those Peacekeeper guns sell for three-four times that and more (PT Barnum rule).

Ruger's business model understands the 90/10 rule -10% return is acceptable if 90% keep quiet - and builds to the minimum finish spec that sells the mostest, the fastest. Shareholders allow and demand it.