ghostrider
Bearcat
I have read over many posts and noticed that those who purchased plastic ruger's say there is no difference. Wow!!!
I'm talking about the new trigger group parts (Housing, trigger, barrel band and mag release. Plus the metal lined barrel with the aluminum casting over it.
You need to understand engineering for aesthetics vs engineering for process and cost reduction. Whenever a manufacture starts to use plastic parts it is because it is more cost effective, not better for the product. Ruger took a very nice 22 carbine rifle and re-designed parts of it along with resourcing other parts (stock, bolt and barrel band). They did this to increase profit and reduce cost.
The issue I have with Ruger is; if they are going to cheapen up the rifle then why raise the price to the consumer? After all, there profit margin has gone way up so why not pass that along to the loyal customer?
If you take a close look at what the new Ruger 10/22's look like vs the old you would be surprised at the difference in detail and over al quality. The stock might as well be made from pine or molded from the same plastic as the trigger housing. The external trimmings are all plastic. The receiver is poorly sand casted with no attention to detail, the inside is as rough as bead blast. The bolt's are no longer machined then surface ground and polished. They are rough tool machined, heat treated and done. The aluminum outer sheath on the barrel is finished so poorly you can see the tool marks from the lathe bit on the entire part. This is shottie machining and fast production rate cause and effect. Ruger may say its not, but it is saving them cost on finish machine work.
The hammer bushings were removed to save money on individual parts and assembly costs. The new hammer is a cheap forging with built in spacers on either side to make up for precision bushings. The plastic trigger flexes and does not lend itself to tapping for trigger stop or other modifications.
Let's look at the trigger housing. Let me ask this question; would you purchase a Ruger Redhawk with a plastic housing? Why not? It's just as good as the steel right. Of course not, it may function the same but the value has been removed along with the sole of the gun. Once you make changes like plastic to the core of a metal firearm, you devalue its design, engineering and net worth.
I say, let Ruger keep all those 10/22's and eat each one along with the cost savings they never past along to the customer. Hey, if you're having trouble meeting target manufacturing costs, raise the price a few dollars but don't raise the price and still take all the value out of the firearm!
If you want a plastic Ruger 10/22 then spend your hard earned dollars on one. Consider this though, how are you going to feel if you ever sell the gun and the buyer asks, Is it Plastic or the older metal design? Because that question is going to come up!
Just my opinion as an automotive design engineer.
I'm talking about the new trigger group parts (Housing, trigger, barrel band and mag release. Plus the metal lined barrel with the aluminum casting over it.
You need to understand engineering for aesthetics vs engineering for process and cost reduction. Whenever a manufacture starts to use plastic parts it is because it is more cost effective, not better for the product. Ruger took a very nice 22 carbine rifle and re-designed parts of it along with resourcing other parts (stock, bolt and barrel band). They did this to increase profit and reduce cost.
The issue I have with Ruger is; if they are going to cheapen up the rifle then why raise the price to the consumer? After all, there profit margin has gone way up so why not pass that along to the loyal customer?
If you take a close look at what the new Ruger 10/22's look like vs the old you would be surprised at the difference in detail and over al quality. The stock might as well be made from pine or molded from the same plastic as the trigger housing. The external trimmings are all plastic. The receiver is poorly sand casted with no attention to detail, the inside is as rough as bead blast. The bolt's are no longer machined then surface ground and polished. They are rough tool machined, heat treated and done. The aluminum outer sheath on the barrel is finished so poorly you can see the tool marks from the lathe bit on the entire part. This is shottie machining and fast production rate cause and effect. Ruger may say its not, but it is saving them cost on finish machine work.
The hammer bushings were removed to save money on individual parts and assembly costs. The new hammer is a cheap forging with built in spacers on either side to make up for precision bushings. The plastic trigger flexes and does not lend itself to tapping for trigger stop or other modifications.
Let's look at the trigger housing. Let me ask this question; would you purchase a Ruger Redhawk with a plastic housing? Why not? It's just as good as the steel right. Of course not, it may function the same but the value has been removed along with the sole of the gun. Once you make changes like plastic to the core of a metal firearm, you devalue its design, engineering and net worth.
I say, let Ruger keep all those 10/22's and eat each one along with the cost savings they never past along to the customer. Hey, if you're having trouble meeting target manufacturing costs, raise the price a few dollars but don't raise the price and still take all the value out of the firearm!
If you want a plastic Ruger 10/22 then spend your hard earned dollars on one. Consider this though, how are you going to feel if you ever sell the gun and the buyer asks, Is it Plastic or the older metal design? Because that question is going to come up!
Just my opinion as an automotive design engineer.
