Ruger won't return gun . . . really

[Ale-8(1)]

Good questions. I'd like to read some good answers.

A few folks have implied they were going to investigate further. Any results from those efforts?

 

[powder smoke]

"stealing"... Ok, so explain how the whole thing works from a legal standpoint with the SRM's? How's it work legally with OM's that they automatically convert? Just a thought that their legal team has a were bit more knowledge on this than us here.

Not stealing Modifying! Besides the return the old parts keep nothing! ps

 

[Dan in MI]

"stealing"... Ok, so explain how the whole thing works from a legal standpoint with the SRM's? How's it work legally with OM's that they automatically convert? Just a thought that their legal team has a were bit more knowledge on this than us here.

So you take your car to the dealership for a safety recall. They determine it is un-repairable. Is it ok with you if they FORCE you to take new replacement model?

What if your car was 1969 Cobra Jet, a lowly '66 Corvair, heck just a standard '71 pick up in great shape?

No matter the size of the object it is YOUR property. They have no legal right force you to give it up, possibly require some type of legal waiver before it is returned, but not take your property.

There is also the value of the item versus the replacement. I'm sure a Cobra jet is worth more than a 2015 Mustang, or an old Corvair is worth more than a Cruz. Companies don't consider collector value in their value appraisal.

 

[caryc]

"stealing"... Ok, so explain how the whole thing works from a legal standpoint with the SRM's? How's it work legally with OM's that they automatically convert? Just a thought that their legal team has a were bit more knowledge on this than us here.

So you take your car to the dealership for a safety recall. They determine it is un-repairable. Is it ok with you if they FORCE you to take new replacement model?

What if your car was 1969 Cobra Jet, a lowly '66 Corvair, heck just a standard '71 pick up in great shape?

No matter the size of the object it is YOUR property. They have no legal right force you to give it up, possibly require some type of legal waiver before it is returned, but not take your property.

There is also the value of the item versus the replacement. I'm sure a Cobra jet is worth more than a 2015 Mustang, or an old Corvair is worth more than a Cruz. Companies don't consider collector value in their value appraisal.

That's true but, if you send a gun to Ruger for repairs and they also do the upgrade and send you back the old parts, I don't think there's a court in the world that would convict them of any wrong doing.

 

[Dan in MI]

That's correct Cary, it's the same with cars. You bring it in for service and all outstanding recalls are done, but this case, as told, was different. The property was taken from the consumer.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

To be precise, when you contact Ruger about returning an OM for any reason, they insist you agree to the "safety conversion" or they will not accept the gun at all. This has been "normal procedure" for years.

In this case, the gun was specifically sent in for the conversion with agreement of the owner. Once the gun was in Ruger's possession they reported it was "unsafe to fire" and refused to return it.

Not the same thing at all, and IMHO quite questionable . . . particularly in view of Ruger's demand for surrender of the 9mm cylinder before any "compensation" could be considered.

There may be some totally reasonable explanation for this entire dustup, but I certainly have not seen it . . . and have considerable doubt that I will. I remain open to further enlightenment, of course.

:roll:

 

[caryc]

That's correct Cary, it's the same with cars. You bring it in for service and all outstanding recalls are done, but this case, as told, was different. The property was taken from the consumer.

Dan,

I was referring to other people that questioned the conversions. In the case as Ale states above, I said before and I'll say it again, they have no business or right to confiscate someone elses property. Would they have the right to come to your house to inspect your guns and confiscate any that they deem unsafe? Kind of ridiculous when you think about it.

Whether they come to your house or you send in the gun for repairs, same principle would apply. It's your property.

And of course we all know why they wanted that 9MM cylinder, even though we'll never see the answer from Ruger.

 

[mohavesam]

All that matters is what has already happened. Time for options has passed.

I believe the FFL screwed the pooch, and should have known the OM was worth probably twice the NM version, and should have sold the "prospective buyer" a NM, as it was probably clear that guy didn't understand the collecti-bility of the OM in original condition.

It doesn't matter why Ruger didn't do the advertised safety conversion, just that it happened. Now that NC employees are making decisions, anything can happen. :roll:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

The FFL was aware of the relative values involved. He attempted to do what his friend, the "prospective buyer" wanted. Yes, he didn't pursue his options when it all went sideways.

It most certainly DOES matter why the Ruger staff did what they did. That "anything can happen" is the lesson to be learned here, and more's the pity. The time for options has passed on this encounter, but we need to be aware that it happened for future reference.

:roll:

 

[Coogs]

I was following this at first but then got sidetracked and just came on board again. There has been a lot of speculation and a lot of good points made. IMHO, and I believe I stated this before, Ruger had no legal right to keep the firearm, period. Unfortunately the FFL must not have insisted, or insisted enough that it be returned. Instead he obviously agreed to the replacement prematurely. Probably about 2-3 months ago I spent some time on the phone with customer service asking about the return of a Maximum. I was assured that if I sent a Max in for repair, they WOULD NOT keep it/confiscate it. If it was repairable, they would. If I did not want the repair because of cost and requested it to be returned, it WOULD BE. If it was non repairable THEY WOULD offer me a trade. If I didn't like the trade and wanted the Max returned, they WOULD return it. 73, you mentioned about the legality of the SRM non return/confiscation. I have researched the MAX since about 1984-5, the only proof I have about the non-return/confiscation are nothing but a bunch of stories. No proof, period. I have posted on several different forums for years asking for documents, evidence of a replacement gun, or anything else that would constitute written proof. The only thing I have ever gotten were stories like......." my brother knew a guy who's second cousin had a shooting buddy that got a new Super for his Max" ......or..........."my uncle's neighbor sent his Max in for repair and they wouldn't send it back but offered him full retail or a new gun"
Take your pick, they are all just stories. Not to change the subject at hand too much, if someone out there has PROOF, PHYSICAL PROOF about a Max trade in and/or non return and/or a buyback, Please get a hold of me!!!!God Bless, Coogs.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Coogs, I've followed your efforts here and over on the "other" Ruger site related to the question of "confiscated" Maximums. Up until this current situation I was of the same opinion as you . . . all rumors, no substantiation. This one, though . . . not good, not good at all.

:roll:

 

[Coogs]

I agree with you about this particular case. But since they ceased production of the Max, the recall, the buy-back, the failure to return, the "don't send a Max in, Ruger will not return it" for me, right now, is nothing more than rumors, that is, until I get some physical proof. This situation is unfortunate, and it leaves you wondering about the current state of affairs at Ruger. If it hasn't been stated yet, I'll speculate here, Ruger either literally "lost" the gun, somewhere, somehow, or, it was stolen, somewhere, somehow, by someone and Ruger just tried to do a little CYA. Wasn't the right way to do it, if that is what happened. Honesty would have been the best policy. Coogs.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I hadn't even considered that the gun might have somehow gotten lost/misplaced. Possible, I guess, and would have easily prompted a CYA response. Good point.

Personally, I think "something else" occurred, but we'll likely never know.

 

[wizofwas]

I hadn't even considered that the gun might have somehow gotten lost/misplaced. Possible, I guess, and would have easily prompted a CYA response. Good point.

Personally, I think "something else" occurred, but we'll likely never know.

Even this still doesn't explain why they wanted the other cylinder back. I'm done speculating, just sayin' something stinks here.

 

[Chance]

Personally, I think "something else" occurred, but we'll likely never know.

Even this still doesn't explain why they wanted the other cylinder back. I'm done speculating, just sayin' something stinks here.[/quote]

Good point wiz. Makes it difficult to give Ruger the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

The only explanation for wanting the cylinder was to "complete the package" . . . and you'll never convince me otherwise. It's the single detail that reveals how nefarious this is.

:evil:

 

[Coogs]

I forgot about them wanting the extra cylinder, but still, it may be a case of CYA, hard to tell, but it makes one wonder about the status of Customer Service and possibly Ruger as a whole. I would have to say that as a whole, there have been many, many more good stories posted here and elsewhere about how good Ruger is/has been vs. how bad they are/have been. To me though this one is that fine gray area possibly bordering on the criminal, once again, JMHO, God Bless Coogs.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I have not intended a condemnation of Ruger as a whole. I firmly believe they have a bad apple (or more) in the customer service department.

Until this is resolved, an action I seriously do not expect to see, I will simply continue to suggest that it might not be a good idea to EVER return any "interesting" piece to Ruger for any reason whatsoever.

JMHO

 

[gmartinnc]

If the gun truly wasn't safe to fire, one of the options should have been to get the gun back with the firing pin hole welded up, or disabled in some other way.
If they ever try this with me, they will find it a little more difficult to pull off.

 

[caryc]

If the gun truly wasn't safe to fire, one of the options should have been to get the gun back with the firing pin hole welded up, or disabled in some other way.
If they ever try this with me, they will find it a little more difficult to pull off.

Welding up the firing pin hole is still destroying someone elses property.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the gun did not belong to Ruger, it belonged to the customer sending it in. If the customer does not agree to any mods to the gun, it is their duty to return it to him in the same condition that it came in.

When I sent a Blackhawk in to have a shorter barrel installed, they sent me a card saying what they intended to do to the gun and I had to sign and return the card giving them my permission. I was able to speed up the process though by calling them and verifying that they had my permission to proceed.

I don't care what kind of condition a gun is in when they receive it, if the customer does not agree to their procedure for the gun then by law they have to return it to him.

What if you took a gun to a local gunsmith and he said "This gun is unsafe to fire and I will have to weld it up to make it unfireable"? You'd think "This guy is off his rocker" and probably call in a LEO to make him return your property.

Ruger does not have any special powers above that gunsmith.