roll marking

B

Brutus

New member
Went to my lgs. yesterday and they had a Ruger rep. there.
He had a 4" GP100 on display that really caught my eye, that is until I turned it over and saw the warning label stamped on the barrel, kinda forgot Ruger did that. What a complete turn off, loved the gun but I think I would cringe every time I saw that stupid warning. Pity because otherwise I'd have ordered one on the spot. Are Redhawks similarly marked?
 
It's pretty standard stuff to have a gunsmith polish off the "warning".

Note that you cant see it from the operators position.
 
Ruger got hauled in to court and sued for something that was completely ridiculous many years back, and this was one of their reactions to that nonsense. It's a big, big, big topic on the subject of Ruger handguns and has been for years, so your recent discovery is extremely well known.

On some of the Blackhawk revolvers, Ruger has been nice enough to stamp all that nonsense on the BOTTOM of the barrel where it's harder to see and somewhat obscured by the ejector housing.

At most, some folks will tell you "meh, it doesn't bother me" or they'll say something smarmy and snotty such as, "I bought the dang thing to shoot, not to read..." :rolleyes: (as if you "shouldn't" point out that it'sa awful looking) However, the lions share of normal people agree that it's obnoxious and the world would be a bit better off without it.
 
I submitted my suggestion, but it didn't get picked:

STANDING AT THE NORTH END OF THIS FIREARM WHEN PULLING THE TRIGGER MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

:D:D:D
 
That wasn't something Ruger just did as a "reaction", it was part of the court ordered settlement. It was either follow the court order or go out of business. Personally, I would rather have the markings and keep Ruger operating, but some folks have said, as with the S&W lock, that they would prefer gun makers close down rather than offend their delicate sensibilities by doing things they don't like. It seems odd that people who claim to be pro-gun would rather not have guns than have some marking or device that "offends" them. Sad.

Jim
 
Jim K
you hit the nail right on the head. Problem, as I see it, is that those of us with common sense can't get stupid rulings overturned. Where do the people making these decisions come from and why can't we be rid of them?
 
Obviously, I did not realize that it was specifically ordered for them to put all of that on each handgun. But how can they force -one- gun maker to do that and zero others? Doesn't even sound logical.
 
Despite the fact that Ruger apparently was forced to do it, the marking is more grotesque than anything that comes out for Halloween that I have ever seen ;)

I of course don't want any of these gun makers to go out of business over these modifications.
 
The roll mark is terrible but the GP is an excellent gun. If you really like the gun learn to live with it or have it blasted off. Either way, it's a shame to deprive yourself of an otherwise well built and great shooting gun.
 
"They" didn't do it to other makers because other makers weren't sued as Ruger was, for millions of dollars. The settlement was part of a deal agreed to by the plaintiff and Ruger, but once it was agreed to and accepted by all parties it became part of a court order that would be enforceable like any other court order.

Could Ruger have refused to settle and gone to trial? Sure, but if they lost, (and it looked like they might) it would have been bye-bye Ruger, since the suit was for much more than the company was worth. IIRC, one major contention by the plaintiff was that he was not given a manual (it was a used gun) and didn't know how to use the gun. That is the reason for the wording of the "billboard."

None of us like that kind of deal, but the real world doesn't always do what we would like.

On the bright side, the result was a much safer Ruger single action revolver system.

Jim
 
I wonder if roll marking was part of the order. Seems to me electro-chemical etching would accomplish the same thing and be much easier to remove.
Also isn't it strange that the ruling only seems to apply to the companies revolvers.
 
Brutus said:
Also isn't it strange that the ruling only seems to apply to the companies revolvers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the lawsuit involved a Ruger revolver?

If the lawsuit "revolved" (pardon the necessary pun) around a revolver, why would an agreed-upon settlement extend to a type or types of firearms not related to the lawsuit?
 
I looked at my new-ish GP100 again last night and the warning is pretty tiny, much smaller than I remembered.
Certainly not worth the fuss.
 
If I remember correctly, the lawsuit involved a Ruger . 357 Blackhawk. All six cylinders loaded, individual was playing fast draw and spin the gun on your finger, yep, gun went flying, landed on the hammer and sent a bullet up his butt. There was another suit abut the same time involving Ruger's single action, gun was loaded all six cylinders ( again ), going down 20 miles of bad road, gun was on the dash board, no holster nor rug, yep, bounced off , landed on the hammer and guess what. Ruger paid a bunch of millions of dollars on those two law suits plus the markings. Stupid shouldn't be sueable but in our land of milk and honey lawyers are a fly in the ointment. Hey, remember, McDonald now has to print " Warning, this hot coffee is hot " on their coffee cups.because of a lawsuit, plus they had to pay several millions of dollars over a little old lady spilling " hot" coffee in her lap. 99 9/10 of all safety labels, regardless of how stupid they are, are result of lawsuits. ADDED: In the 1970's there were a number of lawsuits against gun makers, one case which Ruger lost, the jury was not allowed to hear that the unsafe gun had been " stolen " by the same juveniles which was injured by such an unsafe gun. Another purpose of the roll markings, even if the gun is stolen, the thief can not say he was not warned that the gun was dangerous. Crazy world we live in.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I I do not care about it. I bought a Blackhawk. I shoot the snot out of it. I buy my guns to shoot. Not one single person has looked at it and said, "man that warning there sure does make your gun look ugly." I usualy hear things like "wow that is a nice gun, how does it shoot?" After they shoot it they have a huge grin like the cat that ate the canary:D. I have seen several that later showed up at the range with one of thier own.:eek:
 
I noticed a short read owners manual on the bottom of my 7.5 inch Super Redhawk, but not on the barrel. Never paid much attention but looked for it after seeing this thread. Yeah I think it is stupid, but it doesn't show in normal handling, so it's no big deal. Sign of the times. If it was prominent and along side the barrel, that would be a turn off. It's so stupid like an oven maker printing CAUTION! SURFACE MAY BE HOT! on the stove. Well golly gee, would my thumb hurt if I hit it with a hammer? No warning on the handle.
 
Hit your thumb with a hammer, sue the hammer maker, get a couple of million bucks and make them print "Caution: do no hit thumb with this hammer" on the handle.

As an aside, gun companies are not talking, but insurance companies refuse to insure gun companies, so it is estimated that up to 20% of the retail price on guns goes into a fund to pay claims in lawsuits, some of them phony claims filed by anti-gun activists.

That is yet another advantage of foreign companies; if they are sued for enough money they just close shop in the U.S. and, for all practical purposes, can't be touched.

Jim
 
Or if you are small enough, ( such as Davis Industries ) you just close the doors, wipe the company off the books, move to another state and become a new entity, Cobra Industries in Colorado.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top