CHP GA-86 1982 rejection letter from CHP

[Terry T]

I have obtained a copy of the Dec. 14, 1982 letter to Tom Doerr, Senior, Doerr Distributing Company, Inc., 103 South 7th Av., Caldwell, Idaho, 83605 from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) rejecting the 500 Ruger GA-86 revolvers made up for them. This letter resolves many questions surrounding this unique gun.

I am having trouble up loading a copy of the letter at this time. :shock:
I have it in adobe format and Word format but not as a photo. Not to mention that Photobucket is no longer easy to work with.
Terry T

 

[lovemydals]

Terry,

Try Imgur. Though I haven't tried using it, hittman has & recommended it.

lmd

 

[MinorLV]

Look forward to seeing a pick...cool stuff.

MinorLV

 

[Terry T]

I was able to post a photo to the Ruger Owners & Collectors Society (ROCS) facebook page but they're a closed group. You'll have to ask to join, I think.
Terry T

 

[Terry T]

"Hitman",
PM received and reply sent. E-mail sent too.
Terry T

 

[MinorLV]

Thank you for sharing. Great piece of history.

Best,

MinorLV

 

[Terry T]

The CHP Ruger rejection letter is significant in that the CHP has 'winked and nodded' to the whole open bid process on handgun purchases for decades. They are not allowed to do sole source contracts but always find a way to discount any bids other than S&W, even significantly lower bids.

They completely rearmed in 2006 and SIG won the low bid but CHP went to court to stay with S&W using the same 'tired' arguments they used about the Rugers even though they were not going to have 'compatibility' issues since everyone would have the same new gun.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=37213

Judge ruled in favor of the CHP in 2006.

Interesting to hear the same arguments in the Ruger letter. I still think there was some sort of official hearing to throw out the low bid in the Ruger case in 1982.
Normally, a holster and a speed loader that works with a 'K' frame S&W will also work with a Ruger Security Six. :shock:

CHP has just gone through the same process again - S&W stopped making the 4006TSW and refused to provide any more to the CHP. Couple or three serious bidders, including Glock but S&W got the contract for their M&P, surprise, surprise. New guns are beginning to be distributed. No compatibility with the existing S&W 4006TSW plus all the armorers had to be retrained. In other words, all the arguments for staying with S&W were bogus.
Terry T

 

[Terry T]

"Hittman",
Thanks for uploading the photo of the letter.
Failed contracts are more interesting than successful ones because fewer guns are involved and one often wonders why a good gun would fail to meet a department's needs.
The S&W model 68 (CHP) looks exactly like the Ruger GA-86 with the big grips (CHP). :shock:

By the way, my son is currently a CHP officer.
Terry T

 

[eveled]

I have s&w and Ruger revolvers, it is basically the same motion to open the cylinder. Push the button it either slides or goes in and the cylinder opens no problem going between them.

My one Colt on the other hand with it's little Pawn chess peice to slide in the opposite direction is a different story.

I agree that the reasons stated are silly, and should have been recognized before they even ordered the guns.

Thanks for sharing the letter,

 

[T.A. WORKMAN]

Does Not,,,,get any better than that!

Thanks for sharing.
Terry

 

[mohavesam]

LAPD officers must be a pretty stupid lot, to not be able to operate the differences between a Ruger and a S&W revolver. At least in Mr. Seller's determination!

 

[Terry T]

mohavesam,
Name calling doesn't solve anything.
I guess you missed the difference between LAPD (Los Angles Police Dept.) and CHP (California Highway Patrol).
Terry T

 

[mohavesam]

I guess you missed the part about Mr sellers. He made the statement. I made the observation.

 

[Terry T]

Mohavesam,
This letter is an excellent example of the brand prejudice that Bill Ruger encountered trying to break into the Police market. Even though he had developed a superior product at a better price, tradition bound LE organizations found "stupid" reasons to reject his product. CHP stayed with S&W.
They used "stupid" reasons to circumvent an honest, open bid process. It must have been infuriating to Bill Ruger to bump into this again and again.

So, in a way, Mohavesam, you are supporting my point - The CHP used scary language like "Officer safety" along with "stupid" reasons to reject a superior product at a lower bid. Along the line, I'm speculating, a less than (fire arms) knowledgeable judge agreed.

So...to repeat myself....this letter not only addresses a specific 'rare' Ruger model, but is an excellent example of a much wider issue and experience in Ruger's history. It's tough to be the new kid on the block.

Terry T