What is going on with Ruger's Quality Control?

[Redhawk4]

I was in Cabelas yesterday looking for some ammo and generally nosing around the gun counter. I found myself looking at the Rugers and looked for a Redhawk like mine to see what they were going for these days. Anyway, I recoiled away from the case in horror, no it wasn't the price it was the ends of the barrels. The 4" Redhawk in 44 mag honestly looked like the barrel had been sawn off with a hacksaw and left at that - you could even see some small metal filings in the end of the barrel. A GP 100 next to it had the same finish but it didn't look quite as bad as a smaller area was affected. The 45 Colt 4" Redhawk was much nicer, but still rough compared to my own Redhawk and well below standard IMO.

I pointed the matter out to one of the guys behind the counter and he pulled them out and looked at them but despite being equally horrified, laughed and put them back. As he observed the 44 mag Redhawk had no barrel crown. If it had been my gun store I'd have returned them to Ruger forthwith.

I love my own Redhawk, but honestly I almost felt embarassed I owned one after admitting to the guy behind the counter I had one the same (except for the barrel)- it was like borrowing a nice car to take a girl on a date and then letting slip about your Yugo.

Somebody at Ruger needs to wake up or something

 

[Enigma]

'Quality Control? We phased them out years and years ago. Don't need 'em; let the consumer do the final QC.'

Didn't you know? It's the American way!

 

[JimMarch1]

Yikes. That's...God, I hope it doesn't mean Ruger QC is on the downswing again. They've actually been doing pretty good of late.

The store should send those back, period.

 

[Allen207]

Funny, I was looking at a 4" redhawk .45 in our Cabelas and thought the same thing. The finish was horrible. They had a blue new model blackhawk that looked fine though. I thought maybe they were just getting lazy with the finish on their stainless guns.

 

[Redhawk4]

They certainly should, not doing so makes them worse than Ruger, IMO, because they are knowingly ignoring a problem that's going to ruin someone's day when they hand over their hard earned cah and rush home with their new pride & joy, whereas I don't believe Ruger knowingly sent them out like this. They should however have a system that catches this sort of thing, it reflects very badly on the company sitting in the case for all to see.

Allen207 - I'm not sure you could say the finish was horrible on this one it just looked like it hadn't been finished! but if you saw one too then the problem is obviously quite widespread.

 

[peanut]

You'd think Taurus bought Ruger out or something?

 

[Redhawk4]

Based on the Rugers I saw, that's an insult to Taurus

 

[Tallbald]

I was shocked this morning to see a NIB Vaquero with imitation ivory grip panels that had the Ruger emblem turned about 45 degrees to one side instead of aligned vertically. A small thing for sure and not a mechanical shortcoming but unsightly.

 

[slippingaway]

The store should send those back, period.

They certainly should, not doing so makes them worse than Ruger, IMO, because they are knowingly ignoring a problem that's going to ruin someone's day when they hand over their hard earned cah and rush home with their new pride & joy, whereas I don't believe Ruger knowingly sent them out like this. They should however have a system that catches this sort of thing, it reflects very badly on the company sitting in the case for all to see.

+1

 

[wixedmords]

That's a horrible story Redhawk4.

I feel for you. When something has been pretty reliable, and then one day it is staring you in the face that what you thought as so, is no longer.

It makes one wonder if they have been had.

The good thing is Ruger seems to have been fixing the guns that were in error.

 

[andyo5]

As I described in an earlier post, my 4" Redhawk made in April 2009 had some quality problems. Gash in the frame and cylinder latch that did not fit properly. I sent it back to Ruger and waited 6 weeks to get it back. When it was returned, it was like a custom tuned gun. They improved the cylinder gap and did a few other things that I had not even complained about, plus fixed the issues that I had complained about. The gun shoots great.
I would agree that the customer service department is now their QC.

 

[NMCB3]

Ruger seems to be pretty hit and miss quality wise. I had to send two of the last four Rugers I bought back to the factory for repair. Thats a 50% failure rate as far as I`m concerned. I wont be buying any Rugers for a while.

 

[chet15]

The good thing is Ruger seems to have been fixing the guns that were in error.

Kinda seems counterproductive though, doesn't it? I'd think they'd much rather have that employee (employees?) on the line making new guns.
Do those in charge at Ruger know that their service department at one time was one employee and a cigar box???? Very few problems back then. Even in the '80's when their production at two factories was over 800,000 units in one year their quality was still good. Ruger doesn't make anywhere close to that many guns today and you hear of many problems with QC...front sights tipped to one side, Warning rollmarks not stamped on all guns (I know, some of you think that is a good thing, but it helps to justify a potential lawyer argument that Ruger is at fault for not warning somebody), screws missing from the grip frame (yes, we just got a .41 flattop with three out of five grip screws missing!), and now uncrowned revolver barrels!!!
There's no reason things can't be they way they used to be. Again, Ruger is in control of their own marketshare, or losing/gaining any part thereof.
Chet15

 

[sebtool]

I'd bet my favorite .41 mag Blackhawk that the problem that they're running into is the fabulous, new, OK, not so new, but still BS, 'Lean Manufacturing Principles' that the bean counters and ISO/QS/AS communities are shoving down every manufacturer's throat!

As a machinist, and business owner, I can pretty well guarantee that they're cutting their barrels as close as physically possible to finished overall length to not only save on material, (.015 per barrel on 10,000 barrels? = 12'6" of barrel stock) but the extra 5 seconds it takes to make a facing/crowning pass in a CNC lathe....

Material costs for virtually any type of metal, especially stainless steel and aluminum have tripled in the last 3-4 yrs! We can thank our free trade politicians for allowing the chinese to buy up all the scrap steels over the past 5-7 yrs :evil: creating an artificial shortage of alloy steels. Now combined with the current economy, not to mention the needs of our military for high grade metals, and they're cutting every corner that they think they can get away with!

The only problem lays with the quality of the finished product, and bean counters are more worried about short term profit/loss numbers. If I was the gun shop owner, I'd be sending those guns back, and inspecting each and every 1 that came in the dor with a fine tooth comb....

I hate to say it, as I own several Rugers, but until the factory gets their 'shtuff' together, I won't be buying any new products from them!

It's all a matter of their priorities. Profits are necessary, but alienating thousands of prospective buyers to save .13 per gun is NOT cost effective! Forums like this can have a major impact on their processes and quality, because now, instead of just Billy Bob and his buddies finding out about 1-2 guns, we ALL now know that the factory's screwing up in the QC department, and that's enough to have a serious effect on their sales!

So speak up - they'll hear us eventually, hopefully sooner, rather than later! :!:

 

[Redhawk4]

I guarantee that they're cutting their barrels as close as physically possible to finished overall length:!:

On the 44 mag Redhawk that was the worst of the three it actually looked like "Bubba with the hacksaw" had cut it off too short, the cut looked too close to the front sight for there to have been enough metal left to finish the barrel to the proper length.

I was considering an SP101 in 357 mag with a 3" barrel as my next purchase, but I'm not so sure now. I know Ruger will fix any problems, but I hate going through the process of a dissappointing purchase and getting it fixed - it just takes the "magic" off the whole experience for me. I'm also worried that with such obvious carelessness, that there might be an unseen internal problem that doesn't rear it's head until a life or death moment, at which point, a great customer service department isn't going to matter.

Ruger please wake up - you must be making some people at Smith & Wesson very happy as well as providing "additonal ammo" for the smug S&W owners who look down their noses at our lowly Rugers.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

I'd bet my favorite .41 mag Blackhawk that the problem that they're running into is the fabulous, new, OK, not so new, but still BS, 'Lean Manufacturing Principles' that the bean counters and ISO/QS/AS communities are shoving down every manufacturer's throat!

As a machinist, and business owner, I can pretty well guarantee that they're cutting their barrels as close as physically possible to finished overall length to not only save on material, (.015 per barrel on 10,000 barrels? = 12'6" of barrel stock) but the extra 5 seconds it takes to make a facing/crowning pass in a CNC lathe....

Material costs for virtually any type of metal, especially stainless steel and aluminum have tripled in the last 3-4 yrs! We can thank our free trade politicians for allowing the chinese to buy up all the scrap steels over the past 5-7 yrs :evil: creating an artificial shortage of alloy steels. Now combined with the current economy, not to mention the needs of our military for high grade metals, and they're cutting every corner that they think they can get away with!

The only problem lays with the quality of the finished product, and bean counters are more worried about short term profit/loss numbers. If I was the gun shop owner, I'd be sending those guns back, and inspecting each and every 1 that came in the dor with a fine tooth comb....

I hate to say it, as I own several Rugers, but until the factory gets their 'shtuff' together, I won't be buying any new products from them!

It's all a matter of their priorities. Profits are necessary, but alienating thousands of prospective buyers to save .13 per gun is NOT cost effective! Forums like this can have a major impact on their processes and quality, because now, instead of just Billy Bob and his buddies finding out about 1-2 guns, we ALL now know that the factory's screwing up in the QC department, and that's enough to have a serious effect on their sales!

So speak up - they'll hear us eventually, hopefully sooner, rather than later! :!:

Very well said. Thanks for putting into words, backed by experience, what I've felt for some time.

Re: Redhawk4 - I wouldn't worry about a few uppity S&W owners. Just remind them of internal lock failures, crush-fit, two-piece barrels, their own uncrowned muzzles, MIM, and a variety of other issues. I would much rather buy a new Ruger these days than a new S&W. I did buy one of the Lipsey's .44 Special Blackhawks, and was lucky to get a good one. I won't be buying another new S&W any time soon, after my last experience, though I do own a number of older ones. In fact, my most recent gun purchase was an older S&W.

-- Sam

 

[Hokie73]

As long as Ruger will fix any problems, I won't have a problem buying their guns. They love to pour over numbers so sooner or later some junior bean counter will realize that the current set up is not maximizing profit. Or, maybe it is, I really don't know. I haven't been in a burn down hurry need for a gun in a long time. After one comes back from Ruger, my impression is that the quality of those is better than anything they ever rolled off the assembly line anyway.
Remington is getting the same flack from knowledgeable gun buyers over the Express guns, but I wonder what percent of the total are those versus the "lowest cost or bust" bunch.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

As long as Ruger will fix any problems, I won't have a problem buying their guns. They love to pour over numbers so sooner or later some junior bean counter will realize that the current set up is not maximizing profit. Or, maybe it is, I really don't know. I haven't been in a burn down hurry need for a gun in a long time. After one comes back from Ruger, my impression is that the quality of those is better than anything they ever rolled off the assembly line anyway.
Remington is getting the same flack from knowledgeable gun buyers over the Express guns, but I wonder what percent of the total are those versus the "lowest cost or bust" bunch.

But doesn't it make you just the teensiest bit upset that this is the accepted standard for American manufacturing these days? Lay out $500 for an item, and it might work?

-- Sam

 

[Redhawk4]

I'm with you Sam, firstly it's sad that mediocrity is the norm, in these days of advanced machinery and controls, the quality of yesteryear should be easily surpassed.

Secondly, I never feel the same affection for something that has a problem and needs repair, as I do for something that works right out of the box.

We too often hear that S&W or whoever is having problems as well, but how much of these poor standards, by numerous gun manufacturers, is born from the consumers willingness to accept such standards. I fear that they may be manufacturing down to a standard rather than pursung excellence, because they can get away with it. If you accept this standard, it may go lower still.

Once you have a working design, a gun is really a very simple mechanical device, in relative terms, and should be easy to accurately replicate for manufacture. From an economic standpoint getting it right in the first place, is a lot cheaper than warranty claims, not even taking into account the damage bad publicity can have on sales.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Unfortunately, it seems to be endemic to the buying public. Over on a knife forum that I participate in we've got a bunch of newbies trying to tell the old timers how great the $10 Chinese knives are. They've never experienced a good knife, yet go on and on about how these pieces of junk are "better" than a Case or a Buck, because, well, it didn't cost $40. (And to make it worse, the moderators won't allow discussion on the topic. But I digress...)

So now we're seeing falling expectations having a direct effect on the market. The companies are saying, "Well, they'll accept this level of quality, let's not try any harder than that." Look at your cell phone service: Customers are willing to put up with crap signal quality just to get the latest cool feature. "Pursuing excellence" is so, so, 1970s... It's much easier to manage by the numbers, and to constantly squeeze those numbers to ensure the execs get their bonuses.

-- Sam