Ruger bad quality control period?

E

EvilE

New member
I own a Ruger P90 DC that's I've owned for over 21 years now. The thing eats everything, never jams never misfires, reliable, accurate, tank. I love it.
Some member in a gun group I belong to said the P90's are "rattle traps, made during Ruger's bad quality control period". Is this true or is he talking out of his a$$? I was unaware Ruger had a "bad quality control period"!?!?
Did they, or he talking out his rear?:confused:
 
I honestly had never heard that, but I don't know the history of Rugers as well as some companies. To be honest of the Rugers I've owned I've never been impressed by the quality, but Ruger does stand behind their products and will fix issues you might have. The general impression I've always had is that the older Rugers are rugged, even if bulky.
 
Last edited:
I had several stainless P89's, a P90 and still have an old blued P89. They were/are if nothing else very reliable. Maybe to some on the bulky side but well made stout guns.
 
Maybe it is just because they make so many guns, but I've had to send more Rugers back for work than all others combined. By a wide margin. This is all types of guns over at least the last 40 years. To their credit, Ruger "makes it right" in the end.

Their designs, for the most part are solid, but every Ruger is designed to be easily manufactured with modern cost savings methods with very little hand work needed. It is my guess that it is this method of manufacturing that leads to more out of spec guns getting out the door than other companies. It seems to be Rugers philosophy to get as many out the door as fast as possible and deal with a handful of problems later rather than slow down and get it right the 1st time. It apparently works for them and has earned them a reputation for good customer service after the sale.
 
They'll eventually make it right, much like most other MFR's...
but by that time you may be so irked that you sell 'em off...
Like having a 1022T that groups like a shotgun, after its return,
with a note that said, "Well within Ruger expectations of accuracy",
went out, shot it, and could still beat the Ruger "Target" model
with an 1927 Marlin slide-action .22 rifle...yeah, it got traded off...

Same for a sequential pair of Ruger Vaquero's...1st series,
they finally got the timing right, but by that time I'd picked up
a pair of Uberti's that were more accurate and less headachy...

Have rented and borrowed a fair amount of other Rugers over the years,
the Blackhawks & Redhawks still impress, very well built,
but other than those worthies, nearly everyone else makes better guns.

I have no Rugers at this time, the only rifle that might find itself
in one of my safes would be an M77 boat paddle, if I found a nice deal.
Redhawks & Blackhawks would be welcome...but not much else.

My opinion of their semi-auto offerings is this...
they make them Mil-Spec so they'll feed almost anything,
but Mil-Spec also means loose tolerances,
which means less than stellar precision, for my OCD purposes.
 
Ok this wasn't a "do you like Ruger guns?" Thread.
Not a bashing Ruger thread.
I was merely asking if anyone else had knowledge of Ruger having a period of poor quality control.
Specifically the mid nineties, when the P90 was produced.
Geez......
 
I have several Ruger firearms (handguns and long guns, rim-fire and center-fire) and they have been totally reliable 100% of the time. I have never heard of the alleged "bad quality control period." :confused:
 
I've had and seen some dud Rugers; they have QC issues like everyone else. But they span 35 years and I'd be hard pressed to attribute them to a specific period.
 
He's badly mistaken.

If anything, RIGHT NOW is Ruger's bad quality control period. Consider the recalls of the SR9, LCP, American Rimfire, and SR-556VT.

There was a P85 recall but the rest of Ruger's P series is fine.
 
I have always considered the P90 to be a rattle trap...but absolutely reliable. Never heard of them having many issues...very well respected.

However, I own more Ruger guns than any other brand...but, in the last 3yrs, I have bought 6 new Ruger guns...of those 6, 3 have needed to be returned. Now, I like Ruger guns...but, I think I am experiencing Taurus quality with my recent purchases. BTW, 5 of these 6 new guns have been single action revolvers and all of those having to be returned have been revolvers...so, 3 of 5 new revolvers have had significant issues...action completely locking up And, the problem is in the lockwork...not at the barrel/cyl gap.
 
Last edited:
don't have a p90 but.............I'm on one of the ruger web sites. The p90 always seem to be a well thought of pistol.
I'm just guessing but it sounds like someone with a diffident dislike for Ruger's??
Look hard enough or talk to enough people and you'll find someone that don't like a particular firearm.............just the way some folks are????:rolleyes:
 
I thought they got a lot of grief for going whole hog into MIM pieces in that era. Not so much actual problems but for perception that they were junky.

Beyond a few pictures of snapped safety levers I don't know it there were larger issues.
 
I've never heard of a "time period" when Ruger had a "bad quality control" problem but I guess it's certainly possible, if unlikely. I've owned a lot of Rugers over the last half century and have always been pleased with them. I can only recall having to return a Model 77 rifle once back in the late seventies to have a magazine catch fitted and that's been it.

There are many fine gun companies out there that I've had good experiences with but, if I had to deal with only one of them, it would definitely be Ruger.
 
I was merely asking if anyone else had knowledge of Ruger having a period of poor quality control.
Specifically the mid nineties, when the P90 was produced.
Click to expand...

I've long been a Ruger owner and enthusiast. I've owned a fair number of different Blackhawk's, SBH, Redhawk, Security/Service/Speed-Sixes, Standard & MkII .22's, SP101DAO ... and a KP90DC (stainless P90 with spring-loaded decocker). My father gave me a couple of my first ones at the end of the 60's, and in the early 70's, and I started buying my own in the early 70's.

I've had to either return for repair (or repair) my fair share of Ruger handguns over the years, but I'd not think of any specific time period as being one noteworthy of being called a "poor QC period".

FWIW, my KP90DC was bought when the model was first new, and it had to be returned to Ruger fairly quickly. Weird galling problem on the pick-up rail of the slide, which resulted in rolled metal building up from hammer contact. Turned out they had to replace the slide for what they explained was a heat-treat problem.

I used that P90 a lot, doing a lot of shooting. Over the years I've replaced a few parts on it (extractor, mag catch, guide rod, firing pin, off the top of my head) as they either became worn or broken. One time when I was on the phone to the Prescott plant, ordering some parts, one of the guys asked me how much I'd fired that P90. When I told him, he chuckled and said that maybe it was time to retire it and buy a new one, as I'd probably gotten my money's worth out of it. (The model was still in production at that time.)

I still own that well-worn KP90DC, and it's been a fine .45 for something that only cost me a little over $300 when brand new. Reliable, reasonably accurate, rugged & durable. I don't often use it much anymore, owning 8 other pistols chambered in .45 ACP, including 5 assorted 1911's, but I wish Ruger still made that clunky, aluminum-framed single stack P-Series .45 pistol. It was a real workhorse. Value for the money.

I preferred the original 7-rd mags, myself, versus the later 8-rd mags (using the folding leaf spring design and shorter mag spring), although I did like how the later production mag bodies incorporated a small indentation in the side of each mag lip (to help prevent round displacement when hotter recoiling rounds were being used, mostly meaning +P loads).

The sights and trigger were acceptable for their time and the role of the P90, but I imagine that if the gun were still in production at least the sights would've been improved.
 
In my experience, and as another poster has noted, Ruger's "Bad QC" period is right now, last couple of years. They have, in my eyes, for several of their newer designs, almost become another Taurus, except with much quicker turnaround if/when you have to send something back.

The P Series was never considered the most finely-tuned group of guns, but were generally considered solid and reliable. I forget if my P95 rattled, but slide action was so slow you could almost watch it go back and forth! Not a SIG, not a Beretta, but extremely reliable. Don't worry about your P90.
 
During the life of the P-series pistols, particularly the late '90s, Ruger had a few recalls that they had to deal with, and it earned them a little bit of bad press.

Otherwise... I don't think there was any drop in quality at the time.


If there should be a time period known for 'bad quality control', my vote would go to the Barackolypse: 2009-2011.
Ruger kicked out some seriously malfunctioning, no-way-they-could-have-passed-a-real-QC-inspection pieces; along with many minor problems.

...But so did everyone else that increased production and was trying to feed hordes of new gun owners that were trying to beat the gun control measures on the horizon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top