Why so few Rugers in USPSA Production Class

[gunzo]

Unless someone corrects me, I think I've realized the number 1 reason we haven't seen many Rugers in competition.

Ruger hasn't paid a big name shooter to use one.

Big name shooters have brand names plastered all over, cap, shirt, even down their pants leg. Win matches on Sunday, sell guns on Monday. Ya think you'd see a Mossberg shotgun in the winners circle at the 3 gun nationals if they hadn't paid a big name to use one? Not likely. A lot of grass roots competitors want to use what the champs are using. That puts more of a brand at a match.
If any gun that fits the role is tweaked, tuned, & tested enough it can go to the winners circle. Just has to be used by the right shooter. Ruger seems to have no interest in advertising this way. Or if they have, I've missed it. Has it been done?

 

[DPris]

You won't find a "name" professional shooter who'll have any interest in an SR9 as a tool for the professional circuit.

To hire a pro, you have to find one willing to use the product at that level, and previously Ruger didn't have a product that qualified.
No amount of money a gun company is willing to pay is going to induce a professional shooter to attach his name to a gun he or she can't win with.

Such contracts are not a lifetime deal, they are dependent on the paid shooter having at least a chance to show well on the circuit to benefit the maker, and the shooter has to consider life beyond the contract. If he never wins during that contract run, it affects his chances of picking up another paid gig afterwards & can haunt a career for many years.

Ruger makes good "working guns", but they've never gone after a pro competition market in centerfire pistols.

Not to be repetitive, but I'll say again that the American is the first truly "serious" Ruger design to have a chance in comps & duty leather.

It stands out well above anything Ruger's done previously in centerfire pistol design.

If nothing else I've said on the subject rings a bell, let me just ask this: If Ruger made a competition-worthy pistol, don't you think competition people would be using them?

Those guys like to win.
They seek out equipment that allows them to win.
They don't wait for a paid pro to tell them what to use.
They experiment.
They're always looking for newer & better.
So far, Ruger simply has not put out anything that gets them the trophies they're after.

If Ruger did, you would have seen the brand in volume at matches long before now.
Still NOT knocking Ruger.
Just addressing the original question.
Denis

 

[gunzo]

I am fully aware that a pro would probably not shoot a Hi Point just because Hi point paid them to do it. But if HP was serious enough about getting into competition I'll bet that a pro or several would be willing to test, evaluate, & consult for a generous sum. Not loosing matches with one, not even being seen in public with one, just consult & earn money. Then, by some stroke of the pro's genius & HP's willingness, they cone up with a gun that is "competition ready" would the pro then shoot it for a lucrative contract?

I'm gonna bring up Mossberg again, not to bash, but such a classic example. One of if not the most recognized shooters their is, Jerry Miculek, shooting a 930 Mossberg shotgun in 3 gun comps. Was the 930 "comp ready" when he decided to, or was offered money to shoot it? NO! When the 930 came out, it wasn't dove field ready, it was about as reliable as the weather. JM's consulting & Mossberg's willingness got the gun comp ready & was likely achieved first, "then" the contract came. The checks were signed, the t shirts & caps printed. JM continues to work his usual magic, & Mossberg is selling more guns.

Ruger is or was selling all the guns they can make. Don't ever recall them having a pro, not public with it anyway. Most other manufactures have had them at one time or another, but Ruger has always done things a bit different it seems. Or... maybe they have tried to hire a pro & no one would step up, they were all trying to get on at Hi Point. :wink:

 

[DPris]

The SR9 family offers nothing to a serious competitor.
It may show up now & then in a production-class-type event, but not in the hands of a professional shooter.

As far as "tweaking" with pro consultation goes, again go back to my remarks above concerning two custom shops' determination that it really wasn't worth doing anything with.

The Mossberg 930 (which I worked with when it first came out) was the most reliable semi-auto shotgun I've ever tested.
That design WAS worth adapting for competition use by somebody at Miculek's level.
The SR9 simply isn't.

Not a bad pistol, and certainly far above a Hi-Point, just not a competitive design.
If it was, it's been around long enough now for the competition crowd & the aftermarket people to have come up with something more than merely swapping different sights on them.

Galloway offers a few SR9 performance parts, but that's about it.

The pistol is sound, reliable, and affordable.
Competitors just choose to put their money into other designs.

No pro-shooter that Ruger'd hire could change that.
Denis

 

[gunzo]

OK Denis, you've sent an SR9 to a couple of pro smiths. It can't be made ready, I believe you. Not sure that particular model was the focal point of the conversation.

The OP did not mention an SR9, just a Ruger, so next months new model might be the one! OR... you actually stated, at least twice, that the American might have a chance. So time will tell, or maybe Ruger could care less about that arena & we'll never see anything from them to find out.

I own none of the aforementioned models, & have no plans of obtaining them. My curiosity was simply courious. 8)

NOW!... I'm going down stairs to my cave & have an ice cold beer. Ya want one? I'm buying. :mrgreen:

 

[DPris]

I mention the SR9 because it comes up in discussion & it's the most recent evolutionary development prior to the American.

The P345 had no chance for competition & the earlier generations were generally not regarded as pro-grade.

That beer sounds like a great idea.
Denis

 

[DPris]

Forgot to mention the Ruger 1911s.
Most competitors using that platform go elsewhere.
The pros will go with a more established 1911, mid-range competitors same, and it's largely Ruger fans who may use the Ruger 1911 in other matches.

Not really worth the money for Ruger to hire a name to promote their 1911s.
It's a very crowded field, Ruger's version is not superior to long-established 1911s, and a pro-shooter flying the Ruger banner would more or less get lost in the crowd.
Not enough return for the company.

Another facet is that Ruger doesn't need a "name" to promote the company.

While post-election sales are down industry-wide, Ruger's sailing along quite well at near capacity in three plants.
Denis

 

[DonD]

Well, Denis, you've certainly done a comprehensive job of dumping on the Rugers.

The Prius analogy is really lame. The Prius is WORTHLESS for anything other than mileage and puttering around. It and the Smart (really the Dumb car) car gathered all the worst performance numbers during a years worth of testing a couple years ago as documented by Road & Track. Same with the Camry, often noted as one of the most boring cars on the market. Reliable but BORING.

That is hardly the case of the Ruger in my view.

Re the Ruger American, outside this forum, most of what I've heard is that its trigger is inferior to the SR9Cs although I haven't personally shot one.

You opinion and one I'd say is quite opinonated. Don

 

[DPris]

I've answered the original question honestly & factually.
It may upset hardcore Ruger fans, but it is not dumping on Rugers.

And there's a helluva lot more to a discussion of competition-grade guns than comparing the triggers on the American vs any SR9 variant.
Denis

 

[DonD]

And there's a helluva lot more to a discussion of competition-grade guns than comparing the triggers on the American vs any SR9 variant.
Denis

No doubt. Do I think a Les Baer, Wilson Combat, Richard Heine or other custom 1911s for example are more accurate and thus likely a better competition gun? Would expect so, ought to be for the absurd prices people pay for them, perhaps $8-10X more than a SR9C. And are they any better for what 99.9% of people buy a CCW gun for? I doubt it. Hard to conceal a full size 1911 unless you're a fat boy or wear super baggy clothes.

And no, I'm not a Ruger fanboy but I've had a lot of them and not a one was ever problematic or needed factory service.

You also commented positively on Ruger's sales numbers. Cr***y merchandise almost always fails in the marketplace and Ruger is not failing. Don

 

[DPris]

You're carrying this way too far in the wrong direction.

Nowhere have I said Ruger puts out crappy merchandise.
That's YOU speaking, not me.

I've said Ruger's centerfire pistols have been affordable & workable products that carry out the functions they were designed to provide. I have not said they tended to be problematic.
They just did not rise above in the marketplace previously, and their function was not competition.
Very simple.
Denis