Reduction in Ruger Quality

I bought new 10/22s in 1968, 1976, & 1978 - they all have nice walnut stocks.

Bought a like new Blackhawk .357 from my brother in 1968 - great single action.

Bought a Service Six in the late '70s (IIRC) and a Mini-14 in the '80s - both fine, rugged weapons.

Bought an SP101 in the '90s, and that little thing is built like a tank.

More recently I have bought new an LCP, an SR9, and an SR45 - all of them are excellent quality and very reliable.

They stack up equally well to my S&W wheelguns, my Colts, and also my Springer 1911.

Wouldn't hesitate to buy another one.

The only Ruger I ever got rid of was my first one, a Mark I Standard traded in for a new Single Six in 1959. Still have the SS, but wish I had the Mk I too.
 
Last edited:
The debate goes on

I am all for Ruger making money. I am against some of the changes that cut coners. Some of you assert this is to compete, meet a price point, give people what they want, etc. You are entitled to your opinion. This is a free and open forum to discuss ideas. How did all the gun makers like S&W compete before MIM parts? Changes to improve profitability for multi million dollar CEOs to get a bonus does not translate into a better product for the consumer but it does help line pockets. A Remington 870 Express does not have the forged parts of an 870 Police. If the parts were all the same, why the difference in price? Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard. In applications where failure is more acceptable, a cheaper part is substituted. I never said Rugers are Junk, dangerous, etc. Nor am I saying an 870 express is total junk. What I have asserted, (and you are free to disagree), is that Ruger products today are not built to the same standards as they once were. To me, this means products like the 10/22 that have been produced for years are not of the same quality today as they were in the past in the same way an 870 express is not the same gun as a classic 1960s wingmaster or a currently produced 870 police. If you disagree and would prefer buying a current Ruger over a used one with prior production quality, be my guest. That's your right.
 
I don't recall what the average salary was for workers was back in 1952 when I purchased a Win Mdl 70 270 for $ 127 . Now the average income is in the $ 50--60,000 range. Please correct me if I m wrong. A new Win 70 is in the $ 1,000 range. Over the years I have owned Anschutz , Browning, Cooper, Kimber, Howa , Parker Hale, Sako, Remington, Ruger, Winchester, and Weatherby firearms. The price paid somewhat reflected the workers salary and cost of materials at the time of the purchase. But the better quality walnut wood has increased at a faster rate than inflation. Copper was about 20 cents per pound when I started reloading in 1953 and now its over $ 3 per pound. Back when I purchased the 270 Win rifle workers had very few benifets and the value of the $ was much higher in world trade. Firearms price and quality simpley reflect what is going on in the world.
 
in the past year I have purchased both the SR1911 military length and the commander length .45 ACP. The quality on both is very good, especially considering the price. I looked at the Remington 1911 and although the price is similar the quality and fit is no where near that on the Ruger.
 
I am all for Ruger making money. I am against some of the changes that cut coners. Some of you assert this is to compete, meet a price point, give people what they want, etc. You are entitled to your opinion. This is a free and open forum to discuss ideas. How did all the gun makers like S&W compete before MIM parts? Changes to improve profitability for multi million dollar CEOs to get a bonus does not translate into a better product for the consumer but it does help line pockets. A Remington 870 Express does not have the forged parts of an 870 Police. If the parts were all the same, why the difference in price? Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard. In applications where failure is more acceptable, a cheaper part is substituted. I never said Rugers are Junk, dangerous, etc. Nor am I saying an 870 express is total junk. What I have asserted, (and you are free to disagree), is that Ruger products today are not built to the same standards as they once were. To me, this means products like the 10/22 that have been produced for years are not of the same quality today as they were in the past in the same way an 870 express is not the same gun as a classic 1960s wingmaster or a currently produced 870 police. If you disagree and would prefer buying a current Ruger over a used one with prior production quality, be my guest. That's your right.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is stating the current production 10/22 is on par with the older models and I for one am willing to give as much and maybe a touch more for a clean used model from the 70's, 80's or even 90's. But you are only looking at one or two facets of Ruger and not the whole picture. One facet is that ALL gun manufactures have gone to cost cutting measures and singling out Ruger is very one sided. Even you bring up Remington and the great and powerful Winchester was notorious for doing it. Hell, even Colt and S&W do it. Then you toss out all the good and sometimes innovative things Ruger has done in recent years. High caps mags, a rugged and affordable 1911, improvements to the M77, a decent AR, many new SD and service oriented handguns, etc etc. But perhaps the biggest statement comes from your own post....

Remington charges a premium for quality parts that used to come standard.
Click to expand...

You seem to think all of this is based merely on profits and head honcho bonus' which on the the surface is almost valid. But profits are good and if a CEO wants a couple million a year than so be it. Counter thinking against this is one of our country's biggest downfalls. Plus profits and bonus' are so far from the whole story as to make your argument complete bunk. You absolutely IGNORE all the other factors which many have pointed out. The facts are that if you want a top of the line 10/22 they are available. Magnum Research, Volquartsen and others make em and you pay dearly for em. Not because of profits and bonus' but because they cost more to make. If you want Ruger to make em like they used to you again will pay dearly for them. Then what happens? You and others like you will be crying about how much they cost and STILL about profits and bonus'.

Open your eyes, get off the profits and bonus' and realize that higher quality = higher price tags and it doesn't matter if you talkin donuts, cars, guns or women.

You don't like Ruger than don't buy one, I and everyone else is fine with that. And you won't see too many people argue that their overall manufacture of guns is light years better than the competition. But if your head is so far in the sand to just base your opinion off one or maybe 2 models and to think they are any different than ALL of manufactures out there you need to step back and take a far better look.
 
Last edited:
I think the key thing to take from this thread is that Ruger isn't marketing towards us. When I started shooting Ruger made most of the guns that interested me. Price point was right, features were right, quality was right. As stated above, I now have my one bolt action gun. If I want another I will probably go for a higher quality one. Even my 10/22 is up for grabs as I would now prefer one of the aftermarket receivers with a few extra features. Ruger is trying to the one rifle to the hundreds of thousands of hunters who want just one rifle, not the dozens of rifles to the very few people who want that many firearms. They make great products for that market segment and they don't care if they sell the 20 people in this thread 8 guns a piece as long as they sell 160 people who have NEVER been on a firearm forum 1 gun.
 
John, I think you've made my point. Ruger no longer cares about attracting name recognition as they did in 1949. People buy Rugers because they are an industry leader, not always because they make the best product. They don't care about people who know the difference because so many people don't know or don't care.

dgludwig, the extractor on the 870 express is one part that is changed out by places like Vang Comp and others who customize the express models for reliability. I know there has been a move away from aluminum and towards plastic in the Remington Express trigger guards as well as Ruger 10/22 trigger guards. I am not sure of other parts that vary on the express, but it's generally recognized that the Express models are rougher and take more breaking in than the old wingmasters. We can argue economics vs. quality all day long. I would concede it's not just Ruger cutting corners as I have already indicated, but they are one of my favorite gun makers and I'm sad they have drifted from their traditional production standards. rc
 
I asked the question, rc, because I don't think there's any evidence that Remington is making some Model 870 shotguns with "forged parts" and some not. The finish, even workmanship, might vary from a higher-end Model 870 (the Wingmaster for instance) to an entry-level Model 870 (the Express, for instance), but I doubt that there is any forged part substitute.
 
Ruger no longer cares about attracting name recognition as they did in 1949
Click to expand...
you are absolutely correct. I mean no company that is attempting t attract customers would stoop so low as to completely revamp their service/duty/self defense pistol lines, making 22lr analogs to modern tactical weaponry for cheap training days, reproducing an american classic like the 1911, and introducing a piston driven AR15 lineup all in a 5 year period I might add.

who in their right mind would give the public what they want when they should just be building the stuff that gave them their good name?

PS;
in case you didn't notice... that was a 100% sarcastic post.
 
People buy Rugers because they are an industry leader, not always because they make the best product. They don't care about people who know the difference because so many people don't know or don't care.
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point. People buy Rugers because Rugers are EXACTLy what they want, they just aren't what you want.
Honda Pilot and Porsche Cayenne. I've ridden in both. The differences are obvious and I am aware of them. I'm still not buying a Porsche Cayenne because at the end of the day my Ruger 10/22 doesn't care which floor mat it rests on during the ride to the range. I'm not sure on when Ruger took market share, but I think it was relatively recently. It was because of the changes you are bemoaning.
I received a survey from them a week or two ago. It was the BEST marketing survey I have ever completed. Concise and I think they got great info with their questions. They market(to the patriotic masses) WAY WAY better than any of their competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top