Well here's my qualifications and opinion on the "Ruger matter"
I am a full time gunsmith, and a part time firearms instructor. I used to be a full time instructor with the USMC and later the DOD and I have taught classes to MANY state and Federal agencies over the last 30 years or so. .I am also a former founder and later CEO of Cast Performance Bullet Company. In the last 36 years I have used more guns than I can count, burned the throats out of at least 18 barrels and seen fired over a million rounds from small arms used by my fellows and students.
I know a little bit about guns.
In my professional opinion, NO ONE makes a better 22 LR hand gun or rifle than Ruger for the price, and perhaps at ANY price. The one flaw in their Mk3 pistol is their concession to the PC movement in adding the abominable magazine disconnector, which made an otherwise perfect design into something of a pain in the neck, and prevents the users of there 22/45 from actually doing the cross training they want to do with their 1911 pistols because the mags now will not drop free from the guns. ( Horrible lapse in judgment on Ruger’s part. )
NO ONE makes better DA Revolvers than Ruger. I am an old S&W man myself, and I have grown up with S&Ws for many many years, but from the standpoint of design, and as a gunsmith, I cannot say a thing against a Ruger DA revolver. No criticisms at all.
Only Freedom Arms makes a higher quality SA revolver and those cost 3X more than a Ruger.
The Ruger M-77 Mk2 Bolt action is excellent, and at the top “rung of the ladder” for production rifles made in the USA. Kimber does a “nicer” rifle is a few ways, but they are not "worlds ahead" of Ruger. Winchester-FN, Ruger and Kimber are all very good bolt actions. Savage is nipping hard at their heals too.
The Ruger Red Label shotgun is excellent, but not as well fitted up metal to metal as some of its competitors.
The new Ruger striker-fired pistols are too new for me to have an opinion yet. The first runs of 9mms had triggers that were so bad as to make the gun nearly useless to a lot of good shooters, but the later ones seem a LOT better. If this works out, I would be interested to see if they can give Glock and the Springfield XDs a run for their money.
The Ruger #1 dominates the Single shot market. The early ones sometimes had “so-so” barrels, but most of the new ones are very accurate and the rifle is flawless when it comes to strength and reliability.
The Mini 14 series is not all it could be.
Ruger shot themselves in the foot here, especially when it comes to the mini-30 and the Mini 6.8. There is NO WAY most Americans are going to pay the asking price for a mini in either of those 2 calibers and do so knowing they can only get 4-5 shot magazines for them, when for about the same price the AR market is wide open.
And the ARs are generally more accurate. If Ruger were to standardize some things in production to make their rifles more accurate, and offer CHEAP 25 to 30 round mags for the mini series of rifles, they would take a large chunk of the market back away from the AR buyers, but as they are now, it’s not going to be a competitive rifle.
The new Ruger Scout is good, but going to a long single stack (and very expensive) mag was a BIG mistake in my opinion!
If the 10 round mags sold for 15 to 20 dollars many people would buy the rifle and just accept the fact that if they want to carry more ammo they can buy 3-4 more mags. But most will NOT spend $60 X4 to get those mags. ($240 for just 4 mags)
OR-- If Ruger would have used a metric pattern FAL mag in their design, they could have probably sold the new Scouts faster then they could make them, and do so for years.One more bone head move on Ruger’s marketing team on this rifle. Probably the same man that made the magazine disconnector for the Mk3 pistol. (The man needs to go to work selling groceries somewhere, but please let him quit or get fired from Ruger….)
)