Ruger's next gun. semi-rant...

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Instead of manufacturing more AR rifles (not that i have a problem with those) Ruger should tool up for lever action rifles. Marlington and Rossi need some good competition! Available on different finishes and calibers. 327, 357, 44, 22LR. 22MAG, of course 30-30, 45, 45-70, 454
Blued, stainless, wood, laminated, octagon barrels, rounded barrels etc!

Also offer a subcompact SR1911. And different caliber choices in all the configurations.

ALSO manufacture a GOOD inexpensive pump action shotgun. Give Marlington a run for their money!

 

[powder smoke]

Trouble is I think their plate is full! They would need another or an expand their
facilities. Marlin makes decent lever guns as Mossberg makes decent shoguns at
very reasonable prices. Competing with them, with no tooling and start up cost would
take some time to make a profit. Demand is also a factor I think the market is flooded
with lever guns. Between Henry, Marlin and Winchester they all have a following tough
to break into I believe. Fact is do what you do. ps

 

[Chuckbuster II]

I'd be happy with a Lipsey run of 4.2" REDHAWKS in .41Mag.

Tooling probably even still on the shelf someplace for them...

 

[gramps]

Mossburg 930/935's are $700+ in an 18.5 inch barrel, and an adjustable stock- reasonable? I don't think so.
gramps

 

[Jimbo357mag]

I wish they would bring back the Ruger Deerfield and the model 96 in 22 Hornet, 22 magnum, 357 magnum, 41 magnum and 44 magnum with the newer stock configuration and larger magazine choice. Stainless steel would be nice also.

 

[Don Lovel]

I think at this point, Ruger could not compete with Henry

 

[DGW1949]

Never mind 'em venturing off to find new markets to compete in.
First they need to get serious about developing some sort of QC, and quit using the cheapest parts that can be found (and/or designed) to build the stuff they're already selling us.

Yeah...I realy did say that.

DGW

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Never mind 'em venturing off to find new markets to compete in.
First they need to get serious about developing some sort of QC, and quit using the cheapest parts that can be found (and/or designed) to build the stuff they're already selling us.

Yeah...I realy did say that.

DGW

You're cool man. To an extent, I agree.
I would also agree it's not just Ruger.

 

[DGW1949]

Never mind 'em venturing off to find new markets to compete in.
First they need to get serious about developing some sort of QC, and quit using the cheapest parts that can be found (and/or designed) to build the stuff they're already selling us.

Yeah...I realy did say that.

DGW

You're cool man. To an extent, I agree.
I would also agree it's not just Ruger.

On the other hand.....
A Winchester '92 copy would sure get my attention.
A reliable semi-auto SG would be great too. :wink: .

DGW

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

I like lever guns. I've got about 10 of them. But just like a lot of people my loyalties lie with one brand or another. Just like with single actions my loyalty lies with Ruger. It's one thing to come up with a new product, it's another thing to try to get people to change brand loyalties. How many people do you know that do not already have a 30-30 in Marlin or Winchester. And many of those were used guns when they bought them. Why? They are already loyal to those brands. When people go out looking for a specific brand gun to begin with, getting them to switch loyalties is an up hill battle.

 

[Heliman]

As far as lever guns, don't do it. Do what you do best. That being said, I would buy a commander SR1911 9mm.... In a heart beat!

Dave

 

[Rick Courtright]

Never mind 'em venturing off to find new markets to compete in.
First they need to get serious about developing some sort of QC, and quit using the cheapest parts that can be found (and/or designed) to build the stuff they're already selling us.

Yeah...I realy did say that.

Hi,

A lot of people have said that!

Most everybody here knows how I feel about their "QC" and how it's taken Ruger off the table as to any future purchase of a new gun for me. However, there's a hidden optimist in there which still carries the words of my old gunsmith boss in the back of my head:

"Ruger's designed a lot of good guns. They just haven't made one of 'em yet." That was one of his less negative comments about Ruger's missing QC. And it was back in 1980 when I first went to work for him. 35 years later, what do we hear over and over? "Ruger's got great customer service!" And how did anyone find that out? They had to send a gun back to be fixed, and way too often, it was a brand new one. While that's a sad commentary on a company, it may perhaps be even sadder commentary about its customers that they don't DEMAND better.

Mr. Fifer COULD change my mind in a single meeting, assuming there would be constant followup to ensure the message is followed. And that message would be "Starting today, we will not send a gun out of the factory that hasn't been thoroughly inspected, completely test fired, and it will not be back here in a week, month or even a year of when it was sold!" He should add a test target as some other mfrs do while he's at it...

Now, there are those who will argue "That's gonna cost some money." Yes, it most certainly will. Let's say there's an extra $20 in labor costs and maybe an average of $5 worth of ammo involved per gun. $25 total. How many of us wouldn't pay that, maybe even up to double that to give 'em a good profit margin, to know our hard earned money was buying a good product worth what it costs? Nobody's perfect, but others manage to "compete" in Ruger's price range AND do a much better job of sending out a good product at the same time.

Can it happen? That optimist in me says "Sure!" But that's not the important question. The realist asks:

"WILL it?"

Rick C

 

[6GUNSONLY]

That being said, I would buy a commander SR1911 9mm.... In a heart beat!

Dave[/quote]

Roger that!

 

[32magfan]

I must be "extra special". I have over 60 Ruger revolvers and pistols as well as several 10/22's an an American rifle in 30-06. I have never had to send one thing back for defects or malfunction ( probably jinxing myself BIG-TIME!!). I know they have not always built perfect guns but I haven't gotten a lemon yet. :shock:


My 02. No worries here.

32Magfan

 

[protoolman]

I must be extra special too because I have bought at least 50 rugers in the last 30 years both new and used and never had a bad one. I haven't had such good luck with other brands. I'm about 50 50 on Smiths for instance and they cost more. I believe ruger actually test fires every gun don't they? For mass market guns I believe Rugers quality is tops.

 

[cruzerlou]

Well I sure would like to see Ruger produce a version of the Winchester 94 angle eject lever gun in .357, 44, and 45 LCIn both a rifle and carbines .
Lou

 

[Ruger Packer]

I must be "extra special". I have over 60 Ruger revolvers and pistols as well as several 10/22's an an American rifle in 30-06. I have never had to send one thing back for defects or malfunction ( probably jinxing myself BIG-TIME!!). I know they have not always built perfect guns but I haven't gotten a lemon yet. :shock:


My 02. No worries here.

32Magfan

Same here. I don't have over 60... but I have a bunch!!!

 

[The Preacher]

Ruger missed the boat by not offering a "Best Quality/Premium Grade" 5 shot Ruger Blackhawk/Vaquero Bisley in 480 Ruger w/multiple bbl. lengths. Done up right it would have sold regardless of the added price for the extra fit and finish.

The Preacher

 

[gtxmonte]

Never mind 'em venturing off to find new markets to compete in.
First they need to get serious about developing some sort of QC, and quit using the cheapest parts that can be found (and/or designed) to build the stuff they're already selling us.

Yeah...I realy did say that.

Hi,

A lot of people have said that!

Most everybody here knows how I feel about their "QC" and how it's taken Ruger off the table as to any future purchase of a new gun for me. However, there's a hidden optimist in there which still carries the words of my old gunsmith boss in the back of my head:

"Ruger's designed a lot of good guns. They just haven't made one of 'em yet." That was one of his less negative comments about Ruger's missing QC. And it was back in 1980 when I first went to work for him. 35 years later, what do we hear over and over? "Ruger's got great customer service!" And how did anyone find that out? They had to send a gun back to be fixed, and way too often, it was a brand new one. While that's a sad commentary on a company, it may perhaps be even sadder commentary about its customers that they don't DEMAND better.

Mr. Fifer COULD change my mind in a single meeting, assuming there would be constant followup to ensure the message is followed. And that message would be "Starting today, we will not send a gun out of the factory that hasn't been thoroughly inspected, completely test fired, and it will not be back here in a week, month or even a year of when it was sold!" He should add a test target as some other mfrs do while he's at it...

Now, there are those who will argue "That's gonna cost some money." Yes, it most certainly will. Let's say there's an extra $20 in labor costs and maybe an average of $5 worth of ammo involved per gun. $25 total. How many of us wouldn't pay that, maybe even up to double that to give 'em a good profit margin, to know our hard earned money was buying a good product worth what it costs? Nobody's perfect, but others manage to "compete" in Ruger's price range AND do a much better job of sending out a good product at the same time.

Can it happen? That optimist in me says "Sure!" But that's not the important question. The realist asks:

"WILL it?"

Rick C

I agree with everything said here, up until the point about raising the price for a "better" gun. Why? regardless of price point, when they send it out, it should work right at least. Now expert fit and finish, yeah sure, that would cost a little more. But for the gun to actually WORK as designed.....not so much. And in the long run, which would be cheaper, do it right the FIRST TIME or let somebody send something back two or three times. Shipping isn't free.

As far as customers "demanding" better......That's fine, but it is all too common, to come on one of the Ruger sites, state your displeasure with something and be totally berated by the Ruger "fan boys" as trashing the company. You are repeatedly assured that Ruger is a great company, has great customer service and will gladly fix you up..........and while all that is true, ONE thing will make EVERYONE happy..........build the damn guns RIGHT the FIRST time.

Without counting, I am going to say that I likely have 20 Ruger long guns and probably the same number of pistols. Of that 40, I will likely say 20 have had something I didn't think was up to snuff. Be it accuracy, junk triggers, sights falling off, cases not clearing loading chute, extractors, whatever...........that's a 50% failure rate for me. Now I am pretty handy with guns and have NEVER had to send one back, I just fixed it myself. But to the average guy, that rate would be totally unacceptable.

The last time I had a problem with a NEW Ruger...........I had no telling how many tell me that my gun could not have POSSIBLY come from the factory with the issue I had. That my dealer or a distributor MUST have disassembled my brand new 22/45 Lite and put it back together incorrectly.............really?............got to be kidding me. So yeah, "demand better" is great, but seems way too few are willing to hold the companys feet to the fire.

 

[Plain Old Dave]

Wish list, in order of ease of accomplishment.

1) Thicker wood grips for the Blackhawk. My .41 was painful with the skinny plastic grips and factory 41s.

2) A 5.5" .41 Magnum Blackhawk.

3) The return of the Vaquero. The heavy frame and fixed sights made a .45 Vaquero an ideal backup gun for the Alaskan back country.

 

[toysoldier]

One lever gun that might sell is an aluminum-receiver Marlin 39 copy. One of Ruger's strengths is casting. On drawback to the classic Marlin is its weight. An aluminum-receiver, 16" barrel, straight-stocked carbine with receiver sight would be a mighty attractive little gun.