Has Ruger Engaged in Questionable Business Practices?

I am a little disappointed in Ruger for so blatantly lifting the design form Kel Tec. There is often a disparity in the propriety between doing what one can do and doing what one should do. And since Ruger has chosen to lift the design I wouldn't expect them to give credit to Kel in their marketing. The problem here is that Ruger not only doesn't credt Kel (which I wouldn't expect them to do) but suggest that the design is fresh, new and theirs, which it is not, for the very most part. That said, it isn't the end of the world (and I don't think FEG was suggesting that it is), and while I shoot and enjoy Rugers I have chosen to not support this one particular Ruger product.

As to the gun mags, I buy them not only for the pictures but for the text. I enjoy the former and and am often ticked off by the latter. Who do they think they are kidding? You can't even get a look at a pistol clean without a bunch of add-ons like lights and lasers as there is another opportunity to sell another product. I was looking at a review of the Sig 250 and I couldn't even see a pic of one without all of the crap hanging off of it. And yes, we also have the obligatory knife in the pic, another ad/sales opportunity. And every doggone gun they talk about is the seventh wonder of the world. And, guns that we all know to have serious shortcomings are glossed over only talking aobut the positives. And is any of this any wonder? To be honest and objective the mags would have to step on the feet of advertisers and bite the hand that feeds them.
 
In constrast, Ruger made virtually no products implicated by the ban.
Click to expand...

Take a look at Appendix A to the AWB. It provides the list of weapons that were specifically exempted from the ban. You'll find the Mini-14 on it. So, Ruger made a product that was affected by the ban, but in a positive manner.

Kind of shows why he supported the ban, no?

As for the AWB and Ruger. I think you are clearly in "tin-foil hat" territory. And have spent a little too much time thinkin about this and makeing up your own percieved ideas about Ruger. Sorry.
Click to expand...

No tin foil territory needed, just Ruger's own letter kicking off the idea of a magazine capacity restriction, his statements that certain weapons needed to be sacrificed to buy a little more time to own other weapons, and the preferential treatment given to Ruger's products.
 
So, Ruger's questionable business practices include trying to protect their business from damage due to arbitrary legislation and appearing to copy (or actually copying?) an unpatented pistol design? Since this doesn't even remotely rise to the level of physical injury, I'm not going to loose sleep over it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the well-reasoned argument. This is the sort of discussion I was hoping to generate.

The real key seems to be the nature and extent of the various manufacturers' roles in the AWB. It seems like there are three basic scenarios: 1) US manufacturers cooperated with what amounted to protectionism without deliberately influencing the final form of the bill; 2) US manufacturers were active in supporting and influencing the final form of the bill in order to erect a barrier to trade; 3) US manufacturers conspired to eliminate foreign competition.

44 AMP: It sounds like you are thinking the AWB came into being more like scenario 1 or 2, if I am reading you correctly. IMHO, it was something more like 2, without quite reaching the level of 3. (Just like our government, I can't imagine the various manufacturers agreeing or cooperating enough with each other to carry of some sort of grand conspiracy.) I do agree with your thinking in that it is conceivable that various manufacturers decided to make lemonade out of the lemons they received. I'm not driven by any agenda here, folks. It seems obvious to me that companies like Ruger also lost some revenues due to the AWB (just not as much as their foreign competition).

What I find disappointing is that you cannot start a thread at TFL that might be perceived as critical of a particular brand without logic going out the door. To be fair, a lot of people pretend to be objective as an excuse to start something. I was honestly wondering what people thought about this. If you refuse to even acknowledge the obvious financial motives that Ruger (and S&W, and Colt, and every other U.S. manufacturer...) had in supporting the AWB, then I don't know what to say. This isn't tin foil territory folks. Tin foil territory would be claiming that a grand conspiracy existed. Pointing out that the potential for abuse existed is a failry innocuous suggestion, in my mind.

I really don't understand some of the posts here and the PMs I have received. Personally, I'm not losing any sleep over this. I wondered if other members considered two specific instances of conduct by Ruger ethically questionable business decisions. Again, anything even remotely critical (or overly enthusiastic) seems to be met by a lot of hostility here at TFL. It was a fairly straightforward question, as people like .44 AMP demonstrated.

In general, it is evident that most contemporary Americans do not aspire to an ethical standard higher than what the law mandates. I was also curious if gunowners held arms manufacturers to a higher standard.

A final point: The LCP is virtually identical to the P-3AT in every respect. Some folks claim that it will even take the Kel-Tec magazines. That is NOT "kinda sorta looking like the Kel-Tec." If the pistols only bore a superifical resemblance as Darren007 suggests, then I wouldn't have started the thread in the first place.
 
No tin foil territory needed, just Ruger's own letter kicking off the idea of a magazine capacity restriction, his statements that certain weapons needed to be sacrificed to buy a little more time to own other weapons, and the preferential treatment given to Ruger's products.
Click to expand...

People have been executed in this country on less evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sacco

If the U.S. government had behaved like this, there would be people here talking about the "smoking gun."
 
In general, it is evident that most contemporary Americans do not aspire to an ethical standard higher than what the law mandates. I was also curious if gunowners held arms manufacturers to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

No, it is evident that:

1. Bill Ruger is deceased;

2. The AWB no longer exists;

3. Nobody cares whether Ruger guns are like Kel-Tec guns, because people who like Ruger guns buy them, and people who don't like Ruger guns don't buy them. Likewise, people who like Kel-Tec guns buy them, and people who don't like Kel-Tec guns don't buy them; and

4. Most of us don't understand why you are so upset (see number 3, above) by some purported ethical violation that doesn't even exist.
 
It is an emotional issue, gun bans and the like....

I was also curious if gunowners held arms manufacturers to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

I do believe that is part of (or maybe most of) the reason so many people got upset with Ruger (and with S&W later). A lot of us see any cooperation with gun ban laws as a betrayal principle. Gun makers, on the other hand are faced with a different situation, one where their responsibilities may not allow them to stand firm on a specific principle if they are to stay in business.

Ruger's inital remarks wer taken out of context, and blown out of proportion. (I have seen one letter where he said "IF one had to have a magazine capacity limit," and then he goes on to recommend 10 rnds as reasonable)
Once his remarks (taken out of context) started stirring things up, making it seem he was advocating a mag capacity limit, I think he must have decided the fat was in the fire no matter what, so he became more vocal about it, in order to do what he could to keep his guns off the banned list.

The British owners of S&W (at the time) signed the deal with the Clintons, again for the same base reason, they thought it was in the best interests of their business.

They gun buying public saw it as a betrayal, and reacted strongly. We do hold gun makers to a higher standard than that of other products. Rightly or wrongly, we do it anyway. Partly because of the personal nature of gun ownership, our natural (constitutional) rights, and the fact that guns are something which we trust with our lives plays a large part in shaping our views. Face it, they are not products like cars, TVs or toasters.

Another part is the historical quality of firearms manufacture. While guns can wear out, and do break, the planned obsolescence built into the majority of comsumer goods today is virtually absent in firearms. Even when plastic became a virtual staple of modern gun design, it was strong durable plastic, something that will last.

Guns are special to many of us, and a gunmaker being seen as doing anything against the general good of gun ownership (even if, and especially if they benefit from it) galls us. They are seen as trying to gain some special advantage, an unfair one. And that does not sit well with most of us. Sure, all they may be doing in reality is trying to make lemonade from the rotten lemons they get force fed, but we don't usually see it that way. And especially so when it is a single maker who "caves" and goes along while the rest hold out for what has always been.

Another part of the issue is that if a gun maker is supportive of any part of gun ban legislation (because it has no impact on their business, or because it exempts them, or whatever reason) they are seen as supporting the whole of the gun ban bill (no matter what other provisions are in it) and the idea of banning guns in general (except theirs, of course).

Govt regulation and inteference in all business is at a level never before seen in man's history. Not everything the govt requires is good for us, or good for business. And even the "good" things have unintended consequences.

Most of the gun control (gun ban) laws since 1968 have squeaked by on the narrowest of margins in Congress, and any maker seen as aiding their passage is seen as betraying the rest of us for profit. We hold gun makers in high regard, because of the fine products that they make, and also because they have a history of treating the consumer better than other industries. There are exceptions, but in general, this is the case. And we really, really hate to see that trust abused.

Ruger did what he thought was best, and paid the price for it. He is now in the Happy Hunting Ground (or whatever you wish to call the afterlife), and his actions are history, becoming less relevant to today as time passes. He should be remembered as a good man, who gave us many, many fine guns, and not just someone who in his later years made a terrible PR decision.

Although if I do meet him in the afterlife, I am going to slap him. Not for the mag capacity thing, but for putting that tiny freakin' windage screw in the rear sight of his pistols!:rolleyes:
 
Based on Ruger's ads and test reports in gun magazines the LCP is the most significant new firearm in the 21st century. After all, if the LCP isn't a much better gun, why is it on backorder everywhere? The answer is simple, Ruger has intentionally overstimulated demand for the LCP well past the point where production can keep up. Strangely, the gun press barely mentions the P3AT (if they do at all). Personally, I think Ruger is engaging in unethical marketing practices. I don't care how cute the LCP is, I'm not going to buy one. Besides, they're still on backorder.

Milspec
 
I guess I'm destined to roast in hell. I own a Tanfoglio which is a CZ clone, and covet many of the 1911 clones. Maybe owning a P3AT instead of the Ruger LCP will get me a spot a little further away from the furnace.
 
I guess I'm destined to roast in hell. I own a Tanfoglio which is a CZ clone, and covet many of the 1911 clones. Maybe owning a P3AT instead of the Ruger LCP will get me a spot a little further away from the furnace.
Click to expand...

This is what frustrates me about TFL.

Either you haven't read the thread, or you think I am a bare-faced liar. Frankly, either option is rather insulting.

I have stated repeatedly that I can cite similar instances (questionable decisions or practices) from virtually any manufacturer. I have named several specific examples. Still, some people have decided that I am personally motivated to attack Bill Ruger. I couldn't care less about Sturm & Ruger, Bill Ruger, etc. The LCP is "big news" right now. That's the extent of my agenda.

The examples you cite are not parallels. Tanfoglio wants you to know their pistols are based on the CZ-75. Who would ever have heard of them otherwise? Most 1911 manufacturers go to great lengths to point out the similarities and differences of their products to the true 1911A1. They aren't passing off their clone or "inspired" version as a completely new product.

If you don't see the difference, we will have to agree to disagree.
 
This is what frustrates me about TFL.

Either you haven't read the thread, or you think I am a bare-faced liar. Frankly, either option is rather insulting.
Click to expand...

We've read your thread, and we still don't understand the purported ethical breach by Ruger. Because it doesn't exist. Which is why we can't get all worked up about Ruger's new LCP. There are only so many ways to design a gun. It is a small gun that works like K-Tech's gun. So what?

Did Kimber engage in "questionable business practices" when it produced the Custom Classic, without advertising that Colt created the 1911 platform? No, because nobody cares. Same with Ruger. If you don't like Ruger, don't buy one. Buy a K-Tec instead. Great, problem solved. That's not an insult, and I don't think you're a liar. Perhaps illogical, but truthfully so. :)

"The answer is simple, Ruger has intentionally overstimulated demand for the LCP well past the point where production can keep up."

Come on. Gimmie a break. Ruger has not "overstimulated" demand. Consumers create demand, not manufacturers. Buyers want to buy, sellers want to sell. There's no super-secret illuminati-mind-control conspiracy here. Ruger is apparently making a good gun that lots of people want to buy. And they just started making it. They do make other guns, you know.

Oh, the humanity! The LCP is just like K-Tech's gun! It's immoral! It's horrible! Sorry, most of us don't get it.

Now I'm trying to figure out why I keep wasting my time by responding to this thread, but it's like a bad car accident, I can't help but to slow down and look. :D
 
"The answer is simple, Ruger has intentionally overstimulated demand for the LCP well past the point where production can keep up."
Click to expand...

I never said that. I guess you haven't read the thread. ;)


I asked a question. I felt the response I received was hostile. (I didn't print all the PMs I received. That was a mistake, in retrospect.) I only received a handful of responses that really addressed the issues, IMHO.

I feel like I have addressed all of your so-called points (ignoring quotes falsely attributed to me) several times over. John Browning = dead, for example. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying you don't have an argument, just rhetoric.

Also, you seem to be in serious denial concerning the LCP.

It is a small gun that works like K-Tech's gun. So what?
Click to expand...

If that were true, then I agree. So what? Unfortunately, we are looking at a virtual 1-for-1 copy.

Bottom line: Arms manufacturers do this fairly often. Does it make it right? If you don't have a problem with it, I invite you to explain your reasoning. Misquoting me doesn't really qualify as "explaining your reasoning."
 
I still don't think Ruger has done anything unethical with the LCP.

Business is business. They made a gun and they are selling it.

Only gunowners would complain about a gun company making guns and offering alternatives. You know, "Buyer beware" and all that. Do your research.

I bought a laptop for my 86-year-old father a couple of hours ago - his first, he finally decided he wanted one after 20 years of me prodding him. Guess what, it looks about like all the others and HP didn't advertise who they copied all the parts from. (Hey, anybody remember the Apple Lisa?)

FWIW, it's an HP, AMD Turion X2 TL-60 2.0 Ghz, 3 GB of ram, 17" screen, 250 GB hard drive and only $649 at Circuit City. The same model with 4 gigs was
$899. I would have picked out a $1200 model with an Intel processor, but he said to get a cheap one.

It won't be quite as fast as my Q9450-based desktop, but he's a beginner. :)

John
 
What has more than likely happened is Ruger entered the small frame auto in the cheapest way possible. Go to the dominant player and negotiate a deal for Kel-Tec to toll produce a variant of its P3AT. Ruger gets a inexpensiver (my word) way to enter the market. Kel-Tec get additional business to absorb overhead. A win-win in anyone's book. Ruger gets to dabble in a new market without undue expense. If it turns into a smashing success it can bring production inhouse. If it turns out the market segment is a turkey, Ruger can walk off. Meanwhile Kel-Tec get additional help capitalizing a successful product line. Toll production is a time honored, successful strategy for market entry.
 
I really hate some of Rugers political moves. I think they have sold out their customers more than once. They still make some amazing firearms, and I will still buy them. I just bought a mini-14. I will probably buy a target.22 at some point. I will just hate myself for it.
My understanding is all the US manufactureres supported restraints on CHinese manufacturers in the 90s. THink how cheap SA m1As would be if new polytechs were available at $5-600.
 
What are the similarities between the Kel-Tec and the Ruger, besides their general size? Are the internals the same? Are the materials used the same?
 
I think much of this thread is just plain silly, and getting worked up over nothing. Ruger is a for-profit company, no more and no less. It is not some icon of American virtues. You might or might not know that some years ago it was the subject of a boycott by the American Motorcyclist Association since Ruger excluded health insurance coverage for employee injuries due to riding a motorcycle. So much for an all-American, Mom and apple pie company. And for what it is worth, I just picked up my LCP and although I have not had the chance to fire it yet, it feels good and seems like an improved version of the Kel Tec, just in the way it fits my hand. And unless reliability is an issue, it will replace my S&W640 as my preferred carry gun.
 
What are the similarities between the Kel-Tec and the Ruger, besides their general size? Are the internals the same? Are the materials used the same?
Click to expand...

The LCP is virtually a 1-for-1 copy of the Kel-Tec. Some Kel-Tecs will even take the OEM LCP magazines. Internals and materials are the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top