sturm ruger logo

[kevin seyer]

when did ruger drop the s from the logo? also why did they?
thanks kevin

 

[Anonymous]

I myself don't approve of it, and I've written so in the "Tell The CEO" section of the website.

Everybody says "Ruger" alone in referring to the company and its products, but Alex Sturm believed in Bill Ruger's potential, and Bill always honored that. Even changed the logo background from red to black when Alex died in the car accident.

Now that Bill's gone, I don't like a lot of what the company's done, or the direction it seems to be heading in. Too commercial, following the pack. No real innovation, too many great guns dropped for plastic "same as everyone else's" guns.

Bill Ruger must be rolling in his grave.......

 

[BlkHawk73]

Everybody says "Ruger" alone in referring to the company and its products, but Alex Sturm believed in Bill Ruger's potential, and Bill always honored that. Even changed the logo background from red to black when Alex died in the car accident.

Now that Bill's gone, I don't like a lot of what the company's done, or the direction it seems to be heading in. Too commercial, following the pack. No real innovation, too many great guns dropped for plastic "same as everyone else's" guns.

While it is unfortunate to see a company change it's name/logo, it happens. I can certainly understand the reasons behind it too. "Ruger Firearms" certainly identifies them for what they are much more than "Sturm, Ruger, Corp." did. I don't recall folks calling them Sturm Ruger in conversation so in a way, it's all of us that are somewhat guilty in this happening.
"Too commercial"? It's a lot different market to be in than it was with Bill, a whole different manner to do business now. A successful business, especially a manufacturer, cannot sit idle and rely on things different than everyone else. If a market is strong enough it's good business sense to enter that strong market.
Innovation...just what else can really be done and be innovative? They introduce polymer revolvers and that was innovative so maybe they should have polymer Blackhawks next? :roll: Quite easy to sit back and be the armchair engineer or armchair business/marketing director when your $$$$$$ and name isn't on the line.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

That may all be true.

But it will never be the same.

 

[chet15]

I think by changing the name, the company also lost an opportunity to sell their history. Claimed they were getting rid of the name "Sturm" because nobody knows who he was anyway (why not put a picture of him in their advertising to put a face to the name???). Makes me wonder if anybody really associates the names "Smith" and "Wesson" with two real people, or do people just associate more with it being only a company name???. Well, Sturm, Ruger & Co. would probably not be around today were it not for Sturm. And if Ruger would just get back to their basics and sell their history...make everybody know their history and the unique circumstances the company has lived on....like never needing to borrow one red cent beyond Sturm's initial investment in 62 years. Its all part of advertising the product and Ruger has failed in this respect. Having people see any history in their advertising helps them to give more respect to a company that is still being used by Harvard University as an example of the Proper Way to Run a Business. How many guys don't like history? If Colt or Winchester had the products to rival Ruger's they'd be taking Ruger's business in that power of advertising.
Yes...without a doubt, getting rid of the Sturm name entirely will make people eventually forget who Sturm was along with his impact on the company. Kinda like the way shooting sports are moving closer to a bygone age with our younger generations. Same difference.
I.M.O. there's more to selling something than just pushing the raw materials out your doors.

A good subject no doubt....and another thought....When is the last time Ruger put the phrase "Made In America" in any of their advertising? Could that be important to a law enforcement agency's criteria when choosing between Glock and Ruger?? They are truly missing the boat, but is like banging your head against a wall when we don't have the Ivy League educations.
Chet15

 

[P90]

All things don't change for the Better. In fact, its the opposite in most cases.

 

[gunman42782]

Even changed the logo background from red to black when Alex died in the car accident.

...

Alexander Sturm did not die in a car accident. He had hepatitis and died from that. See page 24 of R.L. Wilson's book, Ruger and His Guns.

 

[El Numero Uno]

gunman42782; Thanks for setting the record straight concerning Sturm's death.
Blackhawk73; I think you are dead on concerning what business is about!
History is history; you can't sell that. You may celebrate it, publicize it, or utilize it as an asset, but it is not what sells products. Reputation evolves from history; Quality is intrinsic in how you run your business; Demand results from having products desired by consumers, who can afford the product.
Looking at the last several years of the Company's financial results, it appears that Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is doing well.
I just voted my shares for the shareholders meeting and it was for Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc..
Shareholders should be happy, as the RGR stock price is at a 52 week high. Don't some of you wish you had bought RGR back when it was in the $4's, with the stock at $22 now!
Stock price generally reflects profitability; profitability results when there is a demand for your product and you can sell it at a price that well exceeds your cost.
Seems to me that Ruger is doing a pretty good job of this with the current Management Team!
No doubt, us Collectors celebrate history of S,R & Co. more than the general buying/ shooting/ hunting Public.

 

[radicalrod]

Hey EMU, I will politely disagree A small example is HARLEY DAVIDSON......they sell HISTORY everyday....and are extremely proud of it....they do make innovations but don't mess with the look....you can tell it is a HD from a mile away....STURM RUGER is the HD of guns....MADE IN AMERICA and has a lot of HISTORY that SHOULD BE PROMOTED.....I am with Chet on this....why wouldn't you push the MADE IN USA aspect or the 62 years of AMERICAN HERITAGE and INGENUITY......once again JMO and worth what you paid :lol: :lol: :lol: RR

 

[SteelShooter]

See things in a similar fashion to Blackhawk73 and Numerouno.

Have just started collecting in the past few years, so looking at things in a newbie perspective and glad Ruger is still around making guns.

Possibly a different way to look at Ruger borrowing money, is they continue to do so....

While they do not have any debt, they do have shares outstanding to the tune of what I think is $23 Million in equity, so in effect everyone who has purchased or held stock gave them a loan :lol:

If the gun purchasing masses did not approve of the direction they were headed, the current level of sales and the current stock price would not be where it is at. Current management may not be totally reverent of past history, but the change to the logo in effect may mark a milestone related to the change in that direction.

Collectors may not like that (me) included, but it keeps the product alive and the variations coming that we (poor) new model collectors like. Example being the birdshead super single six and all those weird clean-up guns that keep popping up! LOL

 

[El Numero Uno]

RR,
Well, motorcycles is way out of my line of expertise!
But are there any major motorcycle manufacturers in the USA now other than HD? If not, then your point is correct and their history and "Made in the USA" is important to their marketing, considering where most of HD's competition probably comes from!
Not sure guns and hogs have the same synergy.
Look what good any history has done for Colt and Winchester. Now men, there is some HISTORY! and S&W!
Anyway, thanks for your analogy.

 

[El Numero Uno]

Interesting financials concerning HD and RGR; last year Harley had nearly $5 billion in sales and made just over $100,000 in profit. Ruger had around $250 million in sales and a profit of nearly $28 million.
Think I will go with the S, R & co. model!

 

[chet15]

Thanks Rod, HD is one of the companies I was thinking about. Man, if they didn't sell their history and have their throwback models would HD be defunct?
There are a lot of other companies who sell their history also. Don't know how well S&W's vintage model DA's are selling, but don't suppose they'd have even come out with them if they didn't think they'd make a profit.
But if a customer takes into account a company's reputation and can get a handle on where Ruger came from amongst a menageria of "other" solid manufacturers with that history...Ruger wins hands down I.M.O. ('course everybody knows I'm a little biased there).

Remember when Colt turned their attention to semi-auto pistols and DA revolvers instead of their SAA? TV had a huge part to do with it, but if Colt had kept making their SA's and had perceived Ruger's vision by not only continuing to make the SAA but also a reduced version in .22 LR, Colt would have been the one expanding their SA models, and Ruger may not even be on the map today. Point being...Ruger sold "the history" of a particular type of model and came out smelling like roses!
He did the same thing with the .22 pistol really, by giving it the shape of a Luger while everything else about it was built to completely modern engineering, aesthetics and price structure. 3-1/2 million pistols later, there is still no real timeline on when Ruger would ever give up that market. When I tell people who aren't into guns what I do, they still say..."Ruger...aren't they they guns that were used in WWII?".
History does sell and Ruger is a proven example of it. They just don't use those sales techniques today like they did when the company was founded.

Ruger is no doubt on the right track, coming out with awesome models the last few years to fill many wanted niches. But in that perverted way of mine, I also look at it this way...the US population runs around 310 million. Ruger's only built 25 million guns so they've got lot of selling to do!!!

Chet15

 

[G2]

Now are we looking for Paul Sr. & Jr. to come together and make us a OCC/PJD RUGER Chopper ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Sorry for the bad humor, But dropping the Sturm, dropped a great history and a better looking LOGO.

The Plain o'l R just looks stupid.

I could even understand the "Hard R" with the advent of the black/ tatical/ plastic guns. It made some sense.

My Opinion.... Rant off.

 

[chet15]

Here's another example...would the PT cruiser have sold as many units as it did without haveing a "vintage" look to it? Granted, other companies tried to do the same thing and failed....but Chrysler managed a bright spot in their company's history.
Chet15

 

[street]

Thanks Rod, HD is one of the companies I was thinking about. Man, if they didn't sell their history and have their throwback models would HD be defunct?
There are a lot of other companies who sell their history also. Don't know how well S&W's vintage model DA's are selling, but don't suppose they'd have even come out with them if they didn't think they'd make a profit.
But if a customer takes into account a company's reputation and can get a handle on where Ruger came from amongst a menageria of "other" solid manufacturers with that history...Ruger wins hands down I.M.O. ('course everybody knows I'm a little biased there).

Remember when Colt turned their attention to semi-auto pistols and DA revolvers instead of their SAA? TV had a huge part to do with it, but if Colt had kept making their SA's and had perceived Ruger's vision by not only continuing to make the SAA but also a reduced version in .22 LR, Colt would have been the one expanding their SA models, and Ruger may not even be on the map today. Point being...Ruger sold "the history" of a particular type of model and came out smelling like roses!
He did the same thing with the .22 pistol really, by giving it the shape of a Luger while everything else about it was built to completely modern engineering, aesthetics and price structure. 3-1/2 million pistols later, there is still no real timeline on when Ruger would ever give up that market. When I tell people who aren't into guns what I do, they still say..."Ruger...aren't they they guns that were used in WWII?".
History does sell and Ruger is a proven example of it. They just don't use those sales techniques today like they did when the company was founded.

Ruger is no doubt on the right track, coming out with awesome models the last few years to fill many wanted niches. But in that perverted way of mine, I also look at it this way...the US population runs around 310 million. Ruger's only built 25 million guns so they've got lot of selling to do!!!

Chet15

Chad! What you are saying is that Ruger sold Colts history and made a fortune, and Colt tried to sell their future and laid an egg. Let's hope that Ruger, while trying to sell their future, doesn't lay that same egg. Ruger needs to look to the future, and bring out new models, but they need to remember their past, and not let their customers forget it either. After all there are probably more collectors of Ruger guns then any other manufacture out there, and the large percentage of them are collecting the "OLD MODELS". And thats Ruger's History. Just look how the new Flattops are selling.

 

[weaselmeatgravy]

A small example is HARLEY DAVIDSON......
they do make innovations but don't mess with the look....

STURM RUGER is the HD of guns....

Or, maybe not so much...

 

[chet15]

Chad! What you are saying is that Ruger sold Colts history and made a fortune, and Colt tried to sell their future and laid an egg. Let's hope that Ruger, while trying to sell their future, doesn't lay that same egg. Ruger needs to look to the future, and bring out new models, but they need to remember their past, and not let their customers forget it either. After all there are probably more collectors of Ruger guns then any other manufacture out there, and the large percentage of them are collecting the "OLD MODELS". And thats Ruger's History. Just look how the new Flattops are selling.

Don't misunderstand me there, Ruger is heading down the right road. But they didn't get to this road without being a quality manufacturer for 62 years. Its the same with Ford/Chevy....there are a lot of people who buy one or the other because it is what they have always done, and what their parents always did.
So to me, getting rid of the name STURM is taking Ruger one step away from what made them in the first place.
From 1949 throughout the 1950's Ruger didn't have that kind of history....Ruger WHO???? WBR is the one who gradually built that up. There are a lot of people out there today who buy a Ruger because of the name...., like HD is able to market their throwback models. Without HD's history, it would be a lot tougher apparently for HD to be a major player today.
Yes...Ruger did make a lot of $ off of Colt, 'course Colt threw it away. In fact, Ruger is even quoted as asking his lawyers if they had any right to make something as similar to the Colt SAA in design. Compare the breech face detail of one of the first 2,000 Single-Sixes with a Colt SAA sometime. They are identical. Ruger had to change it after #2000 though because it is my belief he couldn't get the castings to faithfully reproduce that intricate detail (and made a relief change in the breech face as well to simplify hand fitting of the cylinder). Ruger's legacy is that he simiplified it by making it out of more efficient means, coil springs throughout etc. etc., and brought it to market at a very competitive price.
When is the last time Ruger even bragged abut the modern features of their Single-Six/Blackhawk line....what makes them tick, or even Ruger's "Quality American Craftsmanship"? I just think there is so much more that could be done...and I'd start with gearing their advertising to entice the public to purchase one of every model they've made.
I also think if Ruger geared some of their advertising to the thought that their guns are cherished generation after generation...more in a collector sense that it would take more guns off the secondary market. I know....Ruger doesn't care about selling guns once they left the factory...but, the more guns that are off the secondary market means Ruger has to build more guns to fill those gaps.
Anyway, long story short...I don't think they should be getting away from the past (their history) because it is their history that turned them into a major player in the industry in the first place. Sturm was 50% of that.
Chet15

 

[radicalrod]

Hey Bob, do you have a special outfit to match you pretty pink pistol :lol: :lol: :lol: RR.

 

[kissfan113]

I politely refuse to buy any Ruger firearm not branded with the S, also any accessory, call me old fashioned, but it's the history of the company, I now will buy anything but the new R only logo'd guns, and it's not all just the logo, the feel, fit and finish doesn't seem the same, the matte finishes, laminate woods, synthetic everything doesn't do it for me, what happened to the traditional blued rifle and handgun, brushed stainless steel, and so forth, I guess my further purchases will be older used guns, that still retain the old world look, far as new I'm steering more towards Colt, Smith and Wesson and the like for my handguns, still in the air on rifles now a days, buying up older Winchesters, Rugers, and Remingtons

 

[flatgate]

I politely refuse to buy any Ruger firearm not branded with the S

Well, I think you are missing the boat, so to speak.......

A New Model 10" .357 Flattop with plain black eagle medallions....and a steel XR-3 sized grip frame.

flatgate

 

[RugerBoi]

:shock: Well Flatgate, those pictures tell it all. Sturm should not have his initials on a gun that drags a line on the cylinder before the owner has even had time to remove the guard plastic from behind the cylinder. A fine piece of Lawyerizing a weapon if I ever saw it. RB

 

[flatgate]

Hey, that ain't MY 10" .357, it's the RCA's.

Mine doesn't have the "assembler's" ring....... and it is the Best Finished New Model I've ever seen!

flatgate

 

[RugerBoi]

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful gun, and built with the demensions and grips that us short fingered Idaho derelics like to hold! However, unless I've still got night scum in my eyes, isn't that a ring forming like connect the dots between the lock-ups on that cylinder? And don't I have some that look just like that (with more purple) that don't have stinking drag lines???? And are 30++years old???hummmm?RB

 

[Ale-8(1)]

A. I'm an Old Model guy . . . both me and Rugers.

B. I have bought a few New Models because they are interesting, like a .32 Mag Single-Six and a .357 Max and an original Vaquero. These are all "SR" guns, of course.

C. While I'm disgusted with the "no S" situation, I realize we want folks to buy 'em if we want the company to survive. I said "if".

D. I just think it's sad that the new management is so short-sighted (IMHO) as to eliminate reference to the "silent" partner that made the company possible.

:roll:

 

[dmize]

I personally admired Bill Ruger because of his firearm and mechanical genius,I IMMENSELY RESPECTED the man stricly because he never forgot his friend and partner Alex Sturm.

 

[reakin]

Did folks make this kind of stink when Sears, Roebuck and Co. dropped Roebuck from the name?

reakin

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Dunno.

Guess you'd have to ask on the "Sears Collectors" forum.

 

[street]

Did folks make this kind of stink when Sears, Roebuck and Co. dropped Roebuck from the name?

reakin

Please don't compare Ruger to Sears. The only thing good about Sears and Roebuck was their catalogs. It sure saved on toilet paper. :lol: They could have changed Sears to K-mart and I don't think anyone would care. But changing Sturm Ruger, that's a whole different story.

Without Sturm, and his 50,000 dollars there would not be a Ruger Corp. to cause this discussion in the first place. Mr. Sturm designed the Eagle, which is really a Phoenix, the mythical bird that rose from it's ashes to live again. Which is much like Bill Rugers tool company that rose from bankruptcy to become Sturm Ruger and Co. It's always been Sturm Ruger, just as it's always been Smith & Wesson. To change either one, well it won't be the same.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Well, Sears was surely the household supplier for a couple of generations of Americans . . . including outhouse fodder for the early ones.

But I completely agree with the S&W comparison. The only difference to me is that we have come to refer to the SR&Co products as "Rugers" only, while we still use the entire "S&W" reference for those products.

I kinda understand the change . . . I just don't like it.

:roll: