Ruger Plastic parts opinion

Help Support Ruger Forum:

ghostrider

Bearcat
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
2
Location
Michigan
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.
 

BlkHawk73

Hunter
Joined
Dec 30, 1999
Messages
4,421
Location
Maine
To me it's not a big deal. To others it's armegeddon. Oohh polymer, how horrible. After all, all those Glocks, HKs, XDs even the 22/45s must be garbage. Those polyframed 1911s are junk to - forgot. So much is going this route. Just makes good business sence while still keeping quality within the product.
For the wide customer base for this particular model, a low priced .22 carbine, these changes wot matter at all. To those that build them up, these parts are either changed out or not used anyways.
I have 5 or 6 with the older parts and some with these newer polymer parts. Yet to have any issues.





Auto makers went plastic, raised prices, cheapened the quality and have gone bankrupt. Maybe thier designs need yo return to steel parts ;)
 

AzRebel

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
216
Location
Next to the creek, under a pine
I tend to agree with the OP. I don't care for the plastic replacement parts, even if they seem to work just about as well.

And as a result, I won't buy one, and since I don't own a Ruger 10/22, I likely never will.

Heck, I'm still using an old Marlin/Glenfield model 60 that I bought as a kid (with parents along) back in 1980. Those too, have become laden with plastic parts, and I wonder how they'll function in 30 years or so? That model 60 was quite a deal, I guess. I paid ~$44.00 for it, NIB. It's been a great gun, and I'll keep and use it over the new ones with all the plastic parts.

I have an old 72 Winchester from the late 1930's, judging from the features, and a Colt Woodsman from 1941. Both are in good shape (albeit the Win is far more worn than the Woodsman), and I still shoot and hunt with them. I can't imagine them still working, much less being worth much now if they'd had plastic parts installed on them.

But, the 10/22 isn't a collector's piece, and never will be (ok, so maybe the ones with metal parts will be more desired on the used market). They're shooters that seem to fill a need; and perhaps they're just a bit more disposable now.

It does seem sad though, looking over firearms history. Early on, the steels tended to be weak, and the powder was corrosive so that firearms probably didn't last too long without some serious care and maybe light use. Then steels got better, powders and priming compounds got better, and the guns got far better as a result. Men worked to make a better product, and sold them on that basis.

Now with plastics being improved, the almighty dollar seems to have taken priority to a superior product, and the public in general is to mesmerized to even notice it, much less think about it.

We're turned full circle from not knowing but trying to improve the product, to knowing how but making it cheaper and cheaper to increase profits. The one on the short end is the consumer who is told "It's just as good...", or "it's new and improved...", and having to pay for an inferior product for a lack of quality at a decent price.

Daryl
 

9x19

Hunter
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
2,440
Location
Texas
I have eight older model 10/22s and three new models... the synthetic parts don't bother me one bit, and they are every bit as durable as the old "pot-metal" housing/parts.

Sometimes a change in materials is made for reasons other than simple cost... they can provide a "greener" mfg process, or eliminate excessive re-works, or reduce scrap, or...

Trying to attest to the motivation of others without being in the process-change meetings is a bit too speculative to be taken seriously.
 

Sakoluvr

Single-Sixer
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
157
I can only imagine what would happen if the Marlin 39A went to plastic parts. There is a reason why that rifle still has a following for over 100 years!

Edit: I don't give a darn what the motivation is for plastic (good or bad), as sure as heck would never purchase one.
 

9x19

Hunter
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
2,440
Location
Texas
AzRebel":2vnliroj said:
...
Heck, I'm still using an old Marlin/Glenfield model 60 that I bought as a kid (with parents along) back in 1980. Those too, have become laden with plastic parts, and I wonder how they'll function in 30 years or so?

Well.... I have a Mossberg 340 bolt gun from the '50s with factory synthetic parts and it still functions fine... likewise my Remington Nylon 66 and 77 both still function fine, and they are festooned with synthetics!
 

ghostrider

Bearcat
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
2
Location
Michigan
My issue with Ruger is: they are producing a product of lesser quailty and demanding a higher resale price.

You have to wonder what 6 idiots sat around the conference room table and decided how to take manufacturing and assembly cost out of the most popular firearm in the last 30 years. These people sure weren't shooters or collectors, they were bean counters (Comptrolers). I'll bet most never fired a weapon.

Again, I don't care that much about the cosmetics of the new 10/22, From 10 feet away it looks just fine, so long as I don't own it. It's the quality of parts and craftsmanship that went into the firearm that made it so popular.

If your going to strip the basic qualities from the firearm (metal and attention to detail during manufacturing) and replace them with molded cheap parts and shaby production parts, pass that savings along to the customer .

If they keep this up, they will find themselves in the same boat as the US automakers, raising prices and producing inferior products. The consumer got tired of paying for quailty and getting a feel good sales pitch and shiney crap in return.
 

pistolpete

Single-Sixer
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Northern Wisconsin
I bought a new 10/22 carbine last winter and I was a little disappointed with the plastic trigger housing. But if it works it works. Time will tell on the durability.
 

raw6464

Bearcat
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
85
Wouldn't be surprised if the 10/22 won't get the same type of evaluated legacy as the as the Winchester 94 did with the pre or post 64 differential. There where other issues in play of course but Winchester decided to cheapen the gun to cut cost and improve margin with stamped parts... it looked like it was made by Tonka toys ... it was the beginning of the end of one the most popular carbines ever made.

I just don't understand why Ruger would ph&*^k with the most popular 22 rifle on the planet... and probably their biggest seller?

I guess I'm from the old school... a gun should be a work of art and craftsmanship.... plastics belongs on BB guns.
 

ab4ka

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Lakeland, Florida
I've got a fairly new 10/22 with lots of the nasty, terrible plastic parts. My brother has a 10/22, circa 1974 with all metal parts. I've shot both, and if I were blindfolded and you handed each one to me to shoot, I couldn't tell you the difference. The each shoot equally well. I know some folks get all wound up about the plastic parts. More power to you. There are also some folks that will never own a Glock, only a 1911. More power to them. I love my polymer framed P95R. The plastic doesn't bother me a bit, nor does it on my 10/22, my Charger or my 22/45. If plastic parts help keep costs down so people like me can afford them, great. As for Ruger (and any other company) making money, I always thought that was the purpose of being in business.
 

9x19

Hunter
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
2,440
Location
Texas
Sakoluvr":131tsgty said:
I can only imagine what would happen if the Marlin 39A went to plastic parts. There is a reason why that rifle still has a following for over 100 years!

Edit: I don't give a darn what the motivation is for plastic (good or bad), as sure as heck would never purchase one.

I'm sure the folks at Ruger are heart-broken to hear it.... then again, maybe I'll buy the one they intended to be yours. :twisted:
 

AzRebel

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
216
Location
Next to the creek, under a pine
9x19":3kw6cq3b said:
Sakoluvr":3kw6cq3b said:
I can only imagine what would happen if the Marlin 39A went to plastic parts. There is a reason why that rifle still has a following for over 100 years!

Edit: I don't give a darn what the motivation is for plastic (good or bad), as sure as heck would never purchase one.

I'm sure the folks at Ruger are heart-broken to hear it.... then again, maybe I'll buy the one they intended to be yours. :twisted:

You might as well. I won't buy it.

:)

Daryl
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,297
Location
Kentucky
Those who are young enough to not be aware of these ongoing changes will continue to buy the 10-22's because of their classy looks and dead-serious dependability.

The only folks upset about the changes are us old-timers, and we've most likely bought most of the rifles we're likely to need. Ruger really won't miss those of us who get all upset over these changes.

The future of The Company is in the hands of the kids now, and profitability rules. I don't necessarily like it, but I don't kid myself, either.

:roll:
 

mjpchief

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
377
Location
Southern Illinois
With only 4 posts it looks like someone signed on here just to bash Rugers. I have three 10-22's. One with metal and two with plastic. I like them all. The best shooting 10-22 just happens to have plastic.

I don't think I would be waving the automotive engineer flag to much. Most of the plastic cars we have today need to have "BIC" wrote on the doors. When they run out fuel we just throw them away.
 

SD Handgunner

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
36
Location
South Dakota USA
I am just stating an opinion here but in my opinion "people hate change" no matter what it is. Sometimes that change is for the better, sometime not.

As for polymer / synthetic parts in guns, I am betting half of the long guns sold these days have some sort of synthetic stock. My Kimber Model BP TEN II 1911 .45 ACP has a Polymer / Synthetic Frame, has double column magazines that hold 13 rounds of .45 ACP and those are the reasons I bought it.

As for the new 10/22's with Polymer / Synthetic parts, I have done trigger / action jobs on two of them now. One turned out quite good the other one I had to do more tweaking to to get it how the owner wanted it. The end result was both owners were happy.

As for me personally, I only have one Ruger 10/22, and older one that I have modified. If I buy another one I'll more than likely look for an older used one for a couple reasons. One would be to get the aluminum trigger housing and the other to try to find one at a reasonable price as I am not going to use the barrel or stock anyway.

Larry
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,297
Location
Kentucky
Ruger wants to sell guns. They don't want the sell price to be any higher than necessary to compete with the perceived competition, but they still have to make a profit on each gun sold. Ongoing increases in material and labor costs must be covered and profitability maintained, so they perform constant cost-cutting efforts to offset increases they cannot control. The difference between what they can control and what they cannot control must be covered by a sell price increase.

Without the cost-cutting efforts, the guns would eventually be priced out of the market.
 

CraigC

Hawkeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,197
Location
West Tennessee
Firstly, Ruger does not do steel lined aluminum barrels, don't know where that information came from. Nor have they ever used pot metal. The trigger housings were cast aluminum. BIG difference!

Anybody familiar with me knows that I am a traditionalist. I like blued steel and walnut. However, I have absolutely no problem with Ruger using a polymer trigger housing on the 10/22. Because aluminum wasn't blued steel so plastic ain't much worse to me. As a matter of fact, I'm glad that it's plastic because now the anodized finish won't chip off and look like ass. It has yet to be proven how the polymer pieces will compare to the old aluminum pieces in longevity and wear. So we don't know if the new parts are really better or worse. Injection molding is NOT as "cheap" as people believe either. So we really don't know if it's "cheaper" or not. Some just choose to assume so. Bottom line is, Ruger 'may' have cheapened a relatively cheap rifle. So what? It was never a Winchester 52 and was never meant to be. The hardcore tinkerers are gonna replace all those parts anyway.

I also like the new subdued finishes.
 

Latest posts

Top