For what it's worth I own 5 Rugers. I own several other brands, but not as many as in the Ruger nameplate. As a disclaimer, I consider Rugers to be very good, affordable guns.
For years, they have made an outstanding series of guns especially for the money. Their byline has always been A Working Gun for the Common Man (slightly paraphrased and misquoted I am sure). Their product line by and large has met that requirement admirably. With Bill Ruger's passing, they have diversified their product line greatly with the latest AR-15 knockoff, the LCP, the SR9, and the LCR.
What I find most concerning is that in their eagerness to release an exciting new product(s), it seems they have made shortcuts in their introduction of the LCP and the SR9 in particular. When business is slow, it is the time to apply the full rigor of product testing before releasing it to the public. Every company bases its sales and longevity on its reputation. Sturm Ruger has a very enviable reputation to uphold. It might lose that hard earned respect very quickly if its product quality particularly with respect to new product introduction does not improve. Ruger has always pioneered the development of new manufacturing processes that allow cost reductions without a compromise of quality.
This is the first time I have ever heard the quality of the 10/22 called into question for instance. I bought one several years ago but have not even looked at them recently due to being $50-75 more than what I paid at the time. I have not even heard anything about the Ruger Gold Label as well. I am assuming that they could not make a classic S/S cost effective with other companies like CZ competing.
It would be nice to see the Ruger Deerfield carbine make a comeback as well. With the latest AR offering, Ruger seems to really be taking a bold step in the wrong direction. It is about time they get into the AR market, but they need to offer 2-3 grades of gun with at least a base model that does not have an MSRP tag of $2,000. Ruger has never made its reputation with $1,000+ guns (excluding the Red and Gold Label). Why would now be the time to start? With many companies that offer $800-1200 ARs, how is this being price competitive?
If Ruger really wants to make a market breakthrough, they need to develop a medium size and weight .45 ACP (or .40 for that matter) around the $5-600 price mark. They make guns that are now currently scaled up models of the original P85/89 with minor improvements. This series of semi-auto handguns have always been overbuilt for the caliber intended especially. The SR9 was a step in the right direction, but it needs to be continued. Everyone has always said their Ruger is built like a tank. Isn't it time that people said their Ruger was built like a Ruger, feels like a Browning, shoots like a Colt, and is priced just right?
For years, they have made an outstanding series of guns especially for the money. Their byline has always been A Working Gun for the Common Man (slightly paraphrased and misquoted I am sure). Their product line by and large has met that requirement admirably. With Bill Ruger's passing, they have diversified their product line greatly with the latest AR-15 knockoff, the LCP, the SR9, and the LCR.
What I find most concerning is that in their eagerness to release an exciting new product(s), it seems they have made shortcuts in their introduction of the LCP and the SR9 in particular. When business is slow, it is the time to apply the full rigor of product testing before releasing it to the public. Every company bases its sales and longevity on its reputation. Sturm Ruger has a very enviable reputation to uphold. It might lose that hard earned respect very quickly if its product quality particularly with respect to new product introduction does not improve. Ruger has always pioneered the development of new manufacturing processes that allow cost reductions without a compromise of quality.
This is the first time I have ever heard the quality of the 10/22 called into question for instance. I bought one several years ago but have not even looked at them recently due to being $50-75 more than what I paid at the time. I have not even heard anything about the Ruger Gold Label as well. I am assuming that they could not make a classic S/S cost effective with other companies like CZ competing.
It would be nice to see the Ruger Deerfield carbine make a comeback as well. With the latest AR offering, Ruger seems to really be taking a bold step in the wrong direction. It is about time they get into the AR market, but they need to offer 2-3 grades of gun with at least a base model that does not have an MSRP tag of $2,000. Ruger has never made its reputation with $1,000+ guns (excluding the Red and Gold Label). Why would now be the time to start? With many companies that offer $800-1200 ARs, how is this being price competitive?
If Ruger really wants to make a market breakthrough, they need to develop a medium size and weight .45 ACP (or .40 for that matter) around the $5-600 price mark. They make guns that are now currently scaled up models of the original P85/89 with minor improvements. This series of semi-auto handguns have always been overbuilt for the caliber intended especially. The SR9 was a step in the right direction, but it needs to be continued. Everyone has always said their Ruger is built like a tank. Isn't it time that people said their Ruger was built like a Ruger, feels like a Browning, shoots like a Colt, and is priced just right?