This thread is actually a "reprint" of something that came up in a Ruger LCP review. Long story short, I made a comment to the effect that I considered some of Ruger's business practices questionable. (I am referring to the company, not any individual.)
Here is my thinking:
The AWB was a restriction on free trade targeting foreign guns. Foreign companies by and large don't make revolvers, for example. They do make a lot of weapons with natural capacities over 10, semi-auto rifles, and other products implicated by the ban. In constrast, Ruger made virtually no products implicated by the ban. The only motivations Ruger could have had were as follows: 1) Public safety, or 2) Harming competition. I'm assuming the latter.
Lobbying for or supporting an unconstitutional law to further business interests is pretty much my definition of a questionable business practice. I'm making a few assumptions, but I don't think I'm exactly in tin foil territory.
The P series is Kel-Tec's "flagship" product. At least, it is the most well known Kel-Tec product. The LCP is basically a P-3AT with Ruger on the side. According to several posters at THR, the LCP will even take some Kel-Tec magazines. Legally, Ruger was within their rights to do so if the P-3AT design is not patented. (In all likelihood, the P-3AT does not qualify for any patents, as it introduces no new technology or concept.) In other words, complaining about Ruger "ripping off" Kel-Tec is somewhat unfair.
However, the real aggravation to me is that Ruger is passing this off as their own design with no reference to Kel-Tec whatsoever. Publications like American Rifleman aren't calling them on it, likely due to Ruger's huge advertising budget. To me, it is a questionable business practice to pass of what is essentially a direct copy of another product as a new design.
Bottom Line: Compared to companies like Standard Oil, United Fruit, and Union Carbide, Ruger is a model of integrity. Still, I'm not happy with some of their antics.
Here is my thinking:
The AWB was a restriction on free trade targeting foreign guns. Foreign companies by and large don't make revolvers, for example. They do make a lot of weapons with natural capacities over 10, semi-auto rifles, and other products implicated by the ban. In constrast, Ruger made virtually no products implicated by the ban. The only motivations Ruger could have had were as follows: 1) Public safety, or 2) Harming competition. I'm assuming the latter.
Lobbying for or supporting an unconstitutional law to further business interests is pretty much my definition of a questionable business practice. I'm making a few assumptions, but I don't think I'm exactly in tin foil territory.
The P series is Kel-Tec's "flagship" product. At least, it is the most well known Kel-Tec product. The LCP is basically a P-3AT with Ruger on the side. According to several posters at THR, the LCP will even take some Kel-Tec magazines. Legally, Ruger was within their rights to do so if the P-3AT design is not patented. (In all likelihood, the P-3AT does not qualify for any patents, as it introduces no new technology or concept.) In other words, complaining about Ruger "ripping off" Kel-Tec is somewhat unfair.
However, the real aggravation to me is that Ruger is passing this off as their own design with no reference to Kel-Tec whatsoever. Publications like American Rifleman aren't calling them on it, likely due to Ruger's huge advertising budget. To me, it is a questionable business practice to pass of what is essentially a direct copy of another product as a new design.
Bottom Line: Compared to companies like Standard Oil, United Fruit, and Union Carbide, Ruger is a model of integrity. Still, I'm not happy with some of their antics.