Gripe alert - metal stamping!

N

NINEX19

New member
OK, this is just more of a vent session. I am sure many will agree.

I just bought a GP100 stainless 4.2". This has been on my short list for @10 years, but just never took the plunge until now.
This is not really what I would call a "beautiful" gun, but it isn't ugly and has some very attractive qualities.

SO, why make it more unattractive by plastering both sides of the barrel with useless marking and stamping (etchings?)? I get that the company needs to put the caliber on it and show pride in putting the model and location made, but come on, why permanently put, on the barrel, to read the instruction manual (in quiet large print) one one side and take up 75% of the real estate on the other side with "RUGER GP100".

I know most manufactures do this stuff to some degree, but this type of thing takes a nice steel revolver and turns it ugly. I am a bit more forgiving on poly guns because it blends into the background, but on a stainless steel work of art, that I have dreamed of owning for a long time, they burst my bubble and kinda ruined it for me. I am sure some of it is a lawyer talk, CYA, but make the print smaller or in less conspicuous locations.

OK, I am done venting. I am sure some will find some reason to pick this apart. That's fine. This is just how I feel
 
Last edited:
I can’t really remember, but was this part of a law suit settlement or something like that. I remember when they started doing this everyone said they caved in to the anti-gun crowd, but don’t remember the circumstances.
 
I can’t really remember, but was this part of a law suit settlement or something like that. I remember when they started doing this everyone said they caved in to the anti-gun crowd, but don’t remember the circumstances.
Click to expand...

This would not surprise me. Perhaps the warning label only applied to domestic made guns. I need to go back and look, but I do not think any of my CZs have any warnings on the side, nor do I think my Sigs. I need to look again.
 
I would guess it lowers their insurance premiums and/or would be in their favor if taken to court.

American Derringers have a similar warning regarding loading/unloading on the barrel.
 
It's not just about the warning, it is just that it seems there is just so much wording on guns these days. Almost like a manufacturer competition with each other.
It's everywhere, slides, frames, barrels. Look at the XD and their "grip zone" on the grip. Duh! How stupid and ugly is that (though I personally don't think that taking it off would improve how ugly they are anyway. ;) )
 
I know what you mean, and I think it's tacky also.

And no, Ruger hasn't done this forever. The warning, yes, but not this oversized "billboard." Taurus was the first one I remember doing it with their TRACKER emblazoned all over the side of the barrel, but I wouldn't swear they were the first. Seems to be a fad that will fade away eventually.

I hope.
 
Many folks remove all that junk, depending on the shape of the barrel. I've done several single action Rugers. It may be hard on the side of a GP 100 barrel. Its pretty easy to blend the edges of the single actions when removing the stamping.

Ruger also burrs up the metal on some of them. Some makers polish the stamping top clean up the burrs. It helps, but doesnt make it go away.
 
It all started with the insane liability lawsuits ! :mad: Like Ruger's owner's manual where every other sentence was in red ink .:mad: Paragraphs of warnings on barrels , even the two inch ones came with it !

We as a society pay huge amounts when we buy things for that reason.
Corporations that make dangerous things ,greedy lawyers, jury members who think liability lawsuits are like winning the lottery, etc.
 
Ruger had a choice - settle the suits by agreeing to the warning marking, or lose the suits and go out of business. Maybe some of you folks would have wanted them to stand up for principle and cease operations, but Ruger chose to keep making guns, even with that stamping.

(It is funny how easy it is for folks to tell others to stand on principle and to heck with the consequences.)

Jim
 
Yes, the more I think about it I may have been confusing this text with the letter Bill Ruger wrote suggesting congress limit magazine capacity.
Click to expand...

This situation with Bill Ruger is often quoted out of context. Congress had already decided to pass a bill limiting mag capacity. The original bill was set at 7 rounds. At Bill Ruger's urging it was increased to 10 rounds.

A lot of people misinterpreted the language and have been mad at Ruger for 20 years over nothing.
 
Thanks for some of the back-story on this. I guess this helps make it a bit more palatable as I would rather have a quality firearm with extra wording, than not one at all. I will have to do some more research on this. I just assumed it was a choice that Ruger made for legal reasons, not a forced action.

Yes, having a stupid warning stamped on the side stinks for the Ruger, but as I alluded to, it seem that many makers are putting "extra" words/symbols on firearms (mostly composite handguns).

So, was the warning label only for Ruger or for all U.S. makers? I think I have seen them on other makers as well.
 
Ruger, if any other companies do it , it is because they want too. This subject has been covered in depth many, many times over the past. Remember when McDonald's was sued because their hot coffee was hot! ( if you don't remember, Mac D lost the suit ) now their coffee cups have printed on them, be careful, this hot coffee cup contains hot coffee.
 
I know the S&W M&P line has a warning message stamped on the side informing the user that the gun has no magazine disconnect.

Also, I am also one for less junk on the side of a gun. Most people don't use the front serrations as much as you'd like to think and some manufacturers (looking at Magnum Research) have no taste (oh the rollmarks on their 1911 :eek:).
 
I agree OP that is my least favorite aspect of the GP100, even worse than the super heavy stock DA trigger. Spring changes are a lot easier than slab siding. ;)

I really like that the latest SP101 models have moved the warning UNDER the barrel. I really wish Ruger would do that with the GP100 too.
 
Howdy

I can't believe some of the things that gun owners complain about.

First, read these case histories. Just a few of the many that Ruger has had to deal with over the years. Then, thank your lucky stars that Ruger is still manufacturing firearms in this litigious society.

http://openjurist.org/964/f2d/376

http://openjurist.org/864/f2d/379/shields-v-sturm-ruger-and-company

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/products-liability/halliday-v-sturn-ruger-co/

The simple truth is, Ruger is covering their legal butt as best they can. Stamping a big, fat warning on the side of a firearm attempts to establish the fact that they are doing everything they can to prevent being sued by dumb gun owners who do dumb things with their guns. I have no problem at all with their warnings on the sides of their guns. Better than having them stop making guns.

No, they have not always put these legal notices on their guns.

Top to bottom in this photo, Three Screw 44 Mag Blackhawk, made in 1957, Three Screw 357 Mag Blackhawk, made in 1963, and 45 New Model Blackhawk convertible, made in1975. None of them have any legalese on the barrels. Just Ruger's address.

barrel%20markings_zpsknwbwdo9.jpg




The first Ruger that I ran into with the legal warning on the barrel was this Vaquero, made in 1994.

Vaquero%201994%20barrel%20marking_zpsoxi5efdt.jpg



By 2006 enough owners had complained that Ruger rotated the legal warning to the bottom of the barrel on this New Vaquero.

New%20Vaquero%202006%20barrel%20markings_zpsggctdmd1.jpg
 
The Blackhawk .45 Convertible that I bought new in 1983 has the warning on the barrel, but the letters are not all that large.

So, it would seem that some point between 75 and 83 they began doing it.

It is indeed a sad comment on the state of affairs, but jurors seem to think companies have all the money there is, and can pay millions of dollars for someone else's stupidity.

Somewhere along the line, it became the acceptable standard that, if you did not warn someone not to do something STUPID then somehow YOU are responsible for THEIR STUPIDITY!

I've seen a hairdryer with warnings not to use it underwater, or while sleeping!

All things considered, Ruger's warning doesn't bother me much, and as others have said, you don't see it when looking through the sights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top