Reduction in Ruger Quality

I have no complaints!

I currently owner a Ruger Mark III 22/45 and a Ruger SP101. I had the use of my brother's Ruger Security Six for many years and cried when he needed it back.

I also owned a Ruger 10/22 (older with Walnut stock and metal trigger and trigger guard). It was a superb shooter from the bench but not so good to me in hunting situations because it didn't fit my frame. Not the guns fault and it always performed flawlessly.

Currently I am lusting after the Ruger SR 1911 and if I didn't have 3 very good centerfire rifles already would be purchasing one of the new Ruger Americans.

If you don't like their products, DON'T BUY THEM! However I take exception to your complaints about the company and their products.
 
While ruger changed back to polishing 10/22 barrels due to customer demand, they still haven't reversed course by eliminating the use of plastic on their guns or pricing their products so they are affordable to the common man like they did in the past. Ruger once represened an outstanding value for the dollars spent. I don't think that holds so true in today's market.
Click to expand...

Really? I bought my first 10/22 decades ago - it NEVER came with a walnut stock unless you bought the higher grade model - and I paid 20 years ago what a new one costs today.

You whine about them being affordable to the common man - unless you are still working for minimum wage, their current pricing is affordable to just about everyone, even high school kids working at mickey D's (ammo is another story)
In order to maintain a price point that even walmart shoppers can afford, some things had to be made for less. Seems to me that you have no idea about manufacturing costs and expect things to be priced the same even though the governments have raised taxes, insurance, mandated health care, rising costs for raw materials, shipping, utilities, etc..........
 
Shot my new M77 Markll Varmint Target in 6.5 Creedmoor for the first time today, Shot 1/2" @ 100 yards. Haven't shot a rifle in 5 years so I'd say that Ruger is pretty good.
 
There have been some good points made about differences in new and old Rugers, and some BS thrown in the mix as well. I'll throw in a little more of what I believe to be true. Your feelings may vary...

Ruger has:

THE BEST .22 target pistol (Browning Buckmark a close 2nd)

THE BEST .22 semiauto rifle platform on which to build

THE BEST (arguably) revolvers DA and SA

one of the THE BEST 1911s

one of THE BEST entry/budget level 9mm handguns - P95

THE BEST single shot rifle within reasonable price

THE BEST entry/budget level bolt action rifle - RAR

Once again, that is entirely opinion, but if all that can be said about one brand, its doing alright.
 
Rc, I dont know about the 10-22 because both of mine are old. Rugers high end product has not suffered due to introduction of cheaper rifles. If you want high dollar,"high quality" Rugers; they still make them. I am no fan of Ruger's "quality." I have a Ruger 6PPC that will not outshoot my .30-30 lever action. I had a .22-250 that in over 500 rounds of load development never turned in a 5 shot group under 7/8" at 100. I have done everything I can do to the PPC and it just wont shoot. All that is left is a re-barrel. I guess I will do that next.
 
I love my Ruger revolvers. My Stainless Single Six is a thing of beauty and is of the finest quality. My circa 1980 Redhawk shoots as well as the day it came off the line. Zero repairs in over 30 years and tougher than Thor's mythical hammer. What else could you expect ? Miss America to spring out of the shipping crate?
 
stevenchunter,
many could take issue with most of the things you've said. I'll just compound upon a couple points.
1. the SR1911, though very well made and very high quality is not THE BEST 1911 around or probably even one of the top 5 but considering the relatively low price tag it is the best within it's price range.
2. the "best revolver" is quite arguable. however they are without a doubt the strongest actions, enabling Rugers to be loaded hotter than any other brand.
 
tahunua- I did not claim the SR1911 to be the best, but one of the best, with value being a leading factor. I agree there are better 1911s if you have $1000+ to spend. But for $700 or so, they are hard to beat.

The strength of their revolvers is a well known fact and one of the reasons they are my personal favorite. But you should note that I did mention that they were arguably the best revolvers. I realize alot of people LOVE S&Ws or Colts or something else and thats OK. It leaves more Rugers for me ;)

But for that matter, everything in that post was arguable, it was just my opinions. I was simply trying to prove a point to the OP that Ruger has alot more going for them than he gives them credit for.
 
I own a Mark II, GP-100, LCR and Mini 14.

With the exception of the LCR, I've owned the rest for quite awhile.

None of them are for sale. ;)
 
I have Rugers of several different vintages, and my experience is the new ones are as good or better than anything they have put out in the past. Some of the engineering changes may be disagreeable to you (transfer bars, plastic trigger guards, 10/22 mag releases) but the quality is as good or better than it ever was.
 
Last edited:
I think Ruger is just trying to survive in this poor economy. Consumers are strapped for cash and the price is the top priority in most purchases. I have alot of respect for Ruger, they have not sold out and are providing jobs for American Citizens.
 
When I shop for a gun my quest always brings me back to Ruger. This after a comparison of quality, price and my experience with their reliability and customer service. I am not Ruger loyal. I am loyal to what I want, expect and my pocketbook.
BTW, Ruger does not have liability insurance. They pay for and fight their own battles. The cost for that is built into the price of the product.
 
I'm a recent addition to the gun owners club, as such I can't comment on how Ruger has changed over the years.

However, what I can comment on is from a recent buyer standpoint. With no predilection towards brands, and no real product history to go on - I have indiscriminately purchased firearms based on what I have handled, and used. To my surprise, half of all the guns I have ended up being rugers of one form or another, most of them new models.

With regard to the 10/22 I will agree that out of the box it was not the most accurate or the best finished firearm I own, however; what it did do was work, all the time, every time. It ate whatever ammo i put in it - it remains today my most stable and predictable firearm with regards to ammo and weather conditions. The trigger is plastic, it's okay by me. I never used a metal one so I have no idea what to compare it to. But the one that's there is good enough, and comparable to the competition.
Granted, I have replaced the barrel with an aftermarket highly polished blued one, and the replacement sporter stock is a walnut one that's over 20 years old. and the trigger has been reworked to a lighter and smoother movement. I can say that IMO my final configuration is what the gun should be in a "loaded" configuration option. To that defense, why not? the 10/22 worked great when I got it, but yeah i agree - it could be so much more. I paid $200 for the gun, new, and I put about $200 extra into the gun over a year to make it that. Would I have paid $400 from the shop for it in my final configuration?- doubtful. $400 seems like too much when I look at it that way. But $200, and than another $200 in modifications - sure. Somehow I can swallow that. Simple marketing. I think Ruger is right on with this one.

With regard to the my other Ruger firearms - some I own because they are the only one in that niche (Charger) and others (SR1911) had what I felt to be the best balance between cost and features. While I would never compare the looks of my GP100 to the sleek sexy appeal of a 686 or a python - I found it more comfortable to shoot than my friends 686, and no discernible difference in trigger feel.

Has Ruger made cost cutting measures - undoubtedly. But so have so many other firearm makers. Look at a set of smith revolvers from 1960 to today - a 686 today is not a 686 from 1980, and either of them aren't a model 19 either. It happens

I agree with the others here who have posted that the firearms have been tweaked more towards the emphasis of accuracy over looks. Lawyering up triggers and actions -I feel has done far more though to destroy firearm feel and function than any changeover in manufacturing processes.
 
I have a number of Rugers, some better than others. They are responding to consumer spending like any business.
My new American is an awesome gun and IMO much better than the Entry level Savages, Remington's and others.
The 10/22s definitely have plastic trigger guards and the one I bought a number of years ago has it.
My single six, SBH and 22/45 are great well made guns.
 
I really like my Rugers. New and old... Even the plastic SR45 I just bought. And my new Rugers are more accurate.
 
While I have no Ruger rifles, I do have several Ruger pistols. The two Blackhawk Flattops I have have been flawless in operation and they are the fairly recent 50th editions, one in .357 and the other in .44 M. They are safe to carry with six rounds, go bang every time and I admit they are not as nicely finished as a Colt, they are half the money and with a Colt can you only carry five safely and the Ruger is more durable if you shoot a lot or shoot heavy loads.
I also purchased a new Ruger SR 22 pistol and it is as nice as any pistol in the same price range.
Every gun maker has has some quality slip in the past 5-6 months due to demand and Ruger is no exception, but this will pass as it did with Winchester (remember 1964), Colt (remember the late 70's and early 80's) and others.
 
I don't think that Ruger is different from any manufacturer that builds a product to a particular price point. If the cost of materials goes up, the choice is to either substitute a less expensive component or change the price point. I think that in Ruger's case, they've primarily maintained the price points of the 10/22, at least in comparison to similar rifles from other manufacturers. To do that, they've had to substitute equivalently functional aluminum, plastic and paint for more costly materials.

I've got an old 10/22, a 22/45 Mk III and an LCP. Functionally, the new 10/22s are comparable to the new one (although I do like the feel of the metal parts on mine). The 22/45 and the LCP work exactly as they're supposed to and have never given me a lick of trouble, so I can't complain about Ruger (other than the horrible billboard on the side of the 22/45.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top