Super Blackhawk Customer Service

[Xrayist]

Thanks. IMHO warranty against defects should be perpetual.

Is this statement about Ruger firearms only? If not, say I have a 1967 Corvette and find there was a defect in the engine casting that just showed up.....should GM replace that engine? Just wondering......

 

[Bladerunner714]

Is this statement about Ruger firearms only? If not, say I have a 1967 Corvette and find there was a defect in the engine casting that just showed up.....should GM replace that engine? Just wondering......

yes

 

[epags]

On a positive note:
Re-warranty or no written warranty: Two years ago my Ruger MK l started having FTF issues (weak hammer spring) It was ONLY 42 years old and bought second hand. I contacted Ruger and they asked me to send the pistol to them to have the spring replaced. I pointed out I lived in California and between it's rules and the UPS & Fedex policy dhanges, to do so would cost over $115 just to ship it to Ruger and receive it back.
I politely asked if I could just send the lower grip frame (which for a Ruger MK l does not require a FFL to mail), so for ~$10 USPS Priority Mail I sent it to Ruger, they quickly turned it around after replacing the spring and sent it back at no cost.
I would have expected to pay for the spring and labor and return shipping due to 42 years of wear but they 'ate' that cost.

 

[Bladerunner714]

Thanks I guess sometimes they charge and sometimes they don't - go figure

 

[moparclan]

Several years ago I sent a well used 1964 MKI in for a reblue and a loose barrel fit to frame, mentioned it in the note when shipped. $35 money order included, received it back in a couple of weeks. Perfect condition and barrel to frame fit repaired. Money order was included in box with the receipt, "no charge, warranty work". Most internal parts were replaced.
Maybe a phone call to Ruger?
Good Luck

 

[Bladerunner714]

Thanks I had similar experiences many years ago too but I don't think I'm getting off free this time - will try to negotiate

 

[Hondo44]

Until you talk to them you won’t know their reasoning. And the $345 probably includes return shipping which you’ll have to pay anyway to get the gun back. It may also include other work/parts that were needed. Call a few gunsmiths and see what they’d charge for comparison.

If Ruger does the repair the gun you get back will be like brand new.

 

[jules]

BTW... I have always had good luck with Ruger's CS in the past. But in todays world nothing is as it was.

 

[Bladerunner714]

Until you talk to them you won’t know their reasoning. And the $345 probably includes return shipping which you’ll have to pay anyway to get the gun back. It may also include other work/parts that were needed. Call a few gunsmiths and see what they’d charge for comparison.

If Ruger does the repair the gun you get back will be like brand new.

thanks

 

[Bladerunner714]

BTW... I have always had good luck with Ruger's CS in the past. But in todays world nothing is as it was.

thanks how true

 

[moparclan]

Getting a new barrel you might also get them to put the lawyer billboard on the bottom by the ejector rod housing.

 

[Hondo44]

Current barrels already have the idiot billboard on the bottom for several years now. Another benefit to have Ruger replace the barrel since the 30 year old barrel likely has it on the left side.

 

[Funky]

Have Ruger replace the barrel, when You get it back it will be [as brand new] as it was thirty years ago, polish it up, don't shoot it, and call yourself a collector, and tell the world how great Rugers are. Then buy a Smith & Wesson and shoot the crap out of it. Good Luck Chris

 

[Bladerunner714]

Have Ruger replace the barrel, when You get it back it will be [as brand new] as it was thirty years ago, polish it up, don't shoot it, and call yourself a collector, and tell the world how great Rugers are. Then buy a Smith & Wesson and shoot the crap out of it. Good Luck Chris

thanks - I have some old Smiths - they're great guns and I love 'em - Smith customer service treated me very well in years past - but with what the company's become lately I'd never buy another and advise others not to either - this isn't a Smith forum so please don't ask me to elaborate

 

[Johnnu2]

I ask folks (with similar concerns) who believe in "perpetual warranties": If you owned the company, would you do the repairs for free?.
I would assume that those who would say "yes", never owned their own company, or, if they did, were no longer 'in business' .
J.

 

[Bladerunner714]

I ask folks (with similar concerns) who believe in "perpetual warranties": If you owned the company, would you do the repairs for free?.
I would assume that those who would say "yes", never owned their own company, or, if they did, were no longer 'in business' .
J.

Actually I do know a little about business including the fact that a good reputation is worth maintaining. And since you asked, yes. If I warrant my product to be free of defects I will repair or replace it whenever a defect is found. If I want to limit the term of my warranty I will so state; such as, ‘warranted free of defects for five years from date of purchase’ or similar language. A warranty against defects should be assumed to be perpetual unless otherwise expressly stated. If not, who decides when the warranty has expired; and how? If I warrant my product free of defects and then void the warranty because, in my opinion, it took too long for my valued customer to find the defect, I wouldn’t expect him to contribute favorably to my valued reputation. To me, ‘free of defects’ means ‘free of defects’ – regardless of how long it might take for them to appear.

 

[s4s4u]

Defects.....I do not believe you know what that word means.....

Forcing cone damage is usually caused by heavy loads or superfast light bullets. Unless you noticed a "defect" when you first inspected the gun, there is zero evidence the there was ever a "defect". Thirty years later, and a USED gun?

 

[Bladerunner714]

Defects.....I do not believe you know what that word means.....

Forcing cone damage is usually caused by heavy loads or superfast light bullets. Unless you noticed a "defect" when you first inspected the gun, there is zero evidence the there was ever a "defect". Thirty years later, and a USED gun?

My original post, which began with the words “I’m confused” and is still available for your review, was a polite request for members’ information or opinions that might be helpful. Your post is unresponsive to that request. I’ve no desire to engage you in a debate over my understanding of the business world, my knowledge of firearms or the meaning of any particular words and will, therefore, respond to no further of your rude replies.

 

[s4s4u]

My original post, which began with the words “I’m confused” and is still available for your review, was a polite request for members’ information or opinions that might be helpful. Your post is unresponsive to that request. I’ve no desire to engage you in a debate over my understanding of the business world, my knowledge of firearms or the meaning of any particular words and will, therefore, respond to no further of your rude replies.

Truth hurts...I know....

 

[needsmostuff]

Thanks I had similar experiences many years ago too but I don't think I'm getting off free this time - will try to negotiate

Another point to ponder. Besides the shipping being included (probably a 35 to 50 dollar item) ask if that includes reblueing the whole gun.
Bet it does as it would look "off" without it. That is another $160 ish line item when they charge for it.
All the bits and pieces do add up.

 

[s4s4u]

JB Weld....

 

[Bladerunner714]

Another point to ponder. Besides the shipping being included (probably a 35 to 50 dollar item) ask if that includes reblueing the whole gun.
Bet it does as it would look "off" without it. That is another $160 ish line item when they charge for it.
All the bits and pieces do add up.

Thanks I hadn't thought of that

 

[contender]

needsmostuff made a statement that while I had thought of it,, and figured most realized,, is a the rebluing of the gun. Once you take a gun, remove a barrel, and add a new barrel,, it's very likely to need a rebluing.

I've been giving thoughts about this whole subject.

30 years ago,, Bill Ruger was still running things. The products were top notch,, and few had issues. Production was also a lot lower due to all this.
Current Ruger customer service still holds the "unwritten warranty" as the model of how they operate. But I'm reminded of a comment Bill once said. When someone asked something about collecting Ruger guns,, he replied with something like; "Hell no,, my guns aren't collectable. Buy them wear them out & buy another one!" And yet,, Bill was a serious firearm collector.

With the current business model,, another thing is the simple fact that while you can claim the gun wasn't abused,, the folks at Ruger have zero proof of that. I have enjoyed several conversations with the senior VP who ran the legal dept until just a few months ago. Long before this issue popped up,, we discussed things,, from a Ruger legal standpoint on servicing older guns etc. He said that if a customer claimed something,, without any proof,, in a court of law,, it would be considered "hearsay." Ruger prides itself in building a strong firearm. Yet,, once out of their hands,, they have zero control of how it was used.
Sadly,, there are several companies that have built very strong loads of ammo that can exceed the capabilities of many firearms,, that people put in guns not made for such ammo. And even the "hell for stout" (Bills comment once,) Rugers can have issues over long term use.
So the current warranty issues also have to consider all the possibilities and the facts.

I had a Redhawk that I bought in 1985. A few years later,, the barrel separated from the frame. It was the first of just a few of them that had that happen. The reason "Why?" was a big mystery for about 4 years. During that time,, Ruger THOUGHT it was a frame to barrel strength issue. They quickly designed & introduced the Super Redhawk in an attempt to fix the potential issue.
Turns out,, it was not the frame/barrel junction problem. It was an assembly method combined with the type of lube used.

Then there was the issue of the .357 Maximum "Top strap, flame cutting" that caused Bill to stop production & scrap about 5000 good guns. Yet,, in that case,, it was reloaders who were building ammo using hotter, faster powders, and very light bullets to give high velocities in that gun. Throw in a bad review by a snubbed gun writer,, (who didn't get a gun to review before others got guns,) and it killed the Maxi.

My point to all this long-winded post is that when Bill ran things,, if there had been a bad batch of barrel steel,, it would have had the issue arise,, been documented, and addressed because of proof of more than one bad forcing cone being revealed by the returns. Part of why I bring this up,, is 30 years ago,, silhouette shooting was popular,, and the Ruger Super Blackhawk was one of the kings in the game. If the forcing cones or steel was bad back then,, it would have appeared by those who shot silhouette a lot.

AND due to the current legal thoughts by Ruger,,, combined by lack of other barrels of that vintage having issues,, they have zero proof of how it was treated & the ammo used.
So,, yes,, it's very likely they looked at it,, figuring they have no info (other than your word) that it wasn't abused,, and figured it had been subjected to very hot or over loaded ammo in it's past.

One thing you as the OP hasn't mentioned,,, but by re-reading your original post,, I got the impression you are not the first owner. If I'm mistaken, my apologies. But if you are not the original owner,, and especially if you are the 3rd or 4th owner,, your knowledge of how it was treated prior to your ownership may be a consideration by Ruger. If you are the original owner,, again, my apologies. I'm just thinking of all the potential things that might be a factor in why Ruger is wanting you to pay for the barrel replacement.

I'm NOT,, repeat NOT accusing you of anything or lying or whatever. It's just that I have had many, many encounters with folks who swear that "Daddy bought this gun that way" or "My dealer sold me this gun and said it was factory" or other similar stories. I have seen XR3-RED grips with a red recessed eagle medallion that the owner swore were original factory items. Or the claims of a gun being shipped with a brass g/f and it's well out of the range or model that Ruger made.

Please do not take my post as being critical or anything. It's just a lot of my thinking on it and the potential variables as to why the gun has a bad forcing cone, and the current feelings by the folks at Ruger, combined with a bit of history of how they have done things.

 

[Bladerunner714]

Thank you for your thoughts and the time taken to express them and be assured that nothing you have said is offensive.

To be clear, I am the original owner, having ordered the gun new from a Ruger dealer in July, 1995. I know that the gun has been shot very little, less than 5,000 rounds, that no ‘hot’ or otherwise eccentric ammunition has ever been fired in it, that it has been well cared for and never subjected to any abuse of any kind. The gun has fired the same ammunition and been treated in the same manner as any of my other .44 Magnum revolvers and none of them, even with considerably higher round counts, has suffered any failure of any kind. Absent any of the other reasons for a failure of the forcing cone, I can only conclude based on my knowledge of the guns history that it probably obtained from a manufacturing defect.

On the other hand, I understand and appreciate that Ruger has no way of confirming what I have said. In fact, Ruger Customer Service has been on vacation and I have yet to discuss the matter with them. If this were a simple and clear cut matter of right and wrong, I’d never have asked for advice in the first place. I am a reasonable man and prepared to accept the result of a reasonable discussion with Ruger Customer Service whatever that might be.

 

[Richbaker]

I ask folks (with similar concerns) who believe in "perpetual warranties": If you owned the company, would you do the repairs for free?.
I would assume that those who would say "yes", never owned their own company, or, if they did, were no longer 'in business' .
J.

I can still get free replacements for my Craftsman tools...

 

[Bladerunner714]

I can still get free replacements for my Craftsman tools...

good point

 

[s4s4u]

I can still get free replacements for my Craftsman tools...

Well, Craftsman has an actual WARRANTY, which they advertised in their tool ads.

Credit to them for still abiding to it, but it was a sales point.

 

[Bladerunner714]

needsmostuff made a statement that while I had thought of it,, and figured most realized,, is a the rebluing of the gun. Once you take a gun, remove a barrel, and add a new barrel,, it's very likely to need a rebluing.

I've been giving thoughts about this whole subject.

30 years ago,, Bill Ruger was still running things. The products were top notch,, and few had issues. Production was also a lot lower due to all this.
Current Ruger customer service still holds the "unwritten warranty" as the model of how they operate. But I'm reminded of a comment Bill once said. When someone asked something about collecting Ruger guns,, he replied with something like; "Hell no,, my guns aren't collectable. Buy them wear them out & buy another one!" And yet,, Bill was a serious firearm collector.

With the current business model,, another thing is the simple fact that while you can claim the gun wasn't abused,, the folks at Ruger have zero proof of that. I have enjoyed several conversations with the senior VP who ran the legal dept until just a few months ago. Long before this issue popped up,, we discussed things,, from a Ruger legal standpoint on servicing older guns etc. He said that if a customer claimed something,, without any proof,, in a court of law,, it would be considered "hearsay." Ruger prides itself in building a strong firearm. Yet,, once out of their hands,, they have zero control of how it was used.
Sadly,, there are several companies that have built very strong loads of ammo that can exceed the capabilities of many firearms,, that people put in guns not made for such ammo. And even the "hell for stout" (Bills comment once,) Rugers can have issues over long term use.
So the current warranty issues also have to consider all the possibilities and the facts.

I had a Redhawk that I bought in 1985. A few years later,, the barrel separated from the frame. It was the first of just a few of them that had that happen. The reason "Why?" was a big mystery for about 4 years. During that time,, Ruger THOUGHT it was a frame to barrel strength issue. They quickly designed & introduced the Super Redhawk in an attempt to fix the potential issue.
Turns out,, it was not the frame/barrel junction problem. It was an assembly method combined with the type of lube used.

Then there was the issue of the .357 Maximum "Top strap, flame cutting" that caused Bill to stop production & scrap about 5000 good guns. Yet,, in that case,, it was reloaders who were building ammo using hotter, faster powders, and very light bullets to give high velocities in that gun. Throw in a bad review by a snubbed gun writer,, (who didn't get a gun to review before others got guns,) and it killed the Maxi.

My point to all this long-winded post is that when Bill ran things,, if there had been a bad batch of barrel steel,, it would have had the issue arise,, been documented, and addressed because of proof of more than one bad forcing cone being revealed by the returns. Part of why I bring this up,, is 30 years ago,, silhouette shooting was popular,, and the Ruger Super Blackhawk was one of the kings in the game. If the forcing cones or steel was bad back then,, it would have appeared by those who shot silhouette a lot.

AND due to the current legal thoughts by Ruger,,, combined by lack of other barrels of that vintage having issues,, they have zero proof of how it was treated & the ammo used.
So,, yes,, it's very likely they looked at it,, figuring they have no info (other than your word) that it wasn't abused,, and figured it had been subjected to very hot or over loaded ammo in it's past.

One thing you as the OP hasn't mentioned,,, but by re-reading your original post,, I got the impression you are not the first owner. If I'm mistaken, my apologies. But if you are not the original owner,, and especially if you are the 3rd or 4th owner,, your knowledge of how it was treated prior to your ownership may be a consideration by Ruger. If you are the original owner,, again, my apologies. I'm just thinking of all the potential things that might be a factor in why Ruger is wanting you to pay for the barrel replacement.

I'm NOT,, repeat NOT accusing you of anything or lying or whatever. It's just that I have had many, many encounters with folks who swear that "Daddy bought this gun that way" or "My dealer sold me this gun and said it was factory" or other similar stories. I have seen XR3-RED grips with a red recessed eagle medallion that the owner swore were original factory items. Or the claims of a gun being shipped with a brass g/f and it's well out of the range or model that Ruger made.

Please do not take my post as being critical or anything. It's just a lot of my thinking on it and the potential variables as to why the gun has a bad forcing cone, and the current feelings by the folks at Ruger, combined with a bit of history of how they have done things.

Thank you for your thoughts and the time taken to express them and be assured that nothing you have said is offensive.

To be clear, I am the original owner, having ordered the gun new from a Ruger dealer in July, 1995. I know that the gun has been shot very little, less than 5,000 rounds, that no ‘hot’ or otherwise eccentric ammunition has ever been fired in it, that it has been well cared for and never subjected to any abuse of any kind. The gun has fired the same ammunition and been treated in the same manner as any of my other .44 Magnum revolvers and none of them, even with considerably higher round counts, has suffered any failure of any kind. Absent any of the other reasons for a failure of the forcing cone, I can only conclude based on my knowledge of the guns history that it probably obtained from a manufacturing defect.

On the other hand, I understand and appreciate that Ruger has no way of confirming what I have said. In fact, Ruger Customer Service has been on vacation and I have yet to discuss the matter with them. If this were a simple and clear cut matter of right and wrong, I’d never have asked for advice in the first place. I am a reasonable man and prepared to accept the result of a reasonable discussion with Ruger Customer Service whatever that might be.

 

[needsmostuff]

I can still get free replacements for my Craftsman tools...

They will replace SOME tools brother, some tools.
For untold years I swapped in their crappy Ratchets. Now days they have dropped the design and changed the part number and a better ratchet.
Now days they will not exchange for a different part number even if the old one was retired!
Sears used to exchange Craftsman pocketknives. Nope no more.
Craftsman electric tools always had a lifespan. Sure there are more.
It is still good for sockets and screwdrivers though.