Ruger bashing
I think Ruger's changed, and have stated same in print here before. The replies I get are all along the same lines as here in this thread. Intelligent reminders that our world has changed, and things are not as they were. It seems my tastes and interests remain the same, but the industry, Ruger as a good example, doesn't have to cater to that. I don't have to like that, but it is the way of things. Ruger still makes decent enough guns, just not enough that really appeal to me anymore........
I too likely have more Rugers in the safe than any other firearm. I didn't plan it that way, or am any sort of Ruger collector. All were bought because Ruger was the only maker producing THAT firearm, or that firearm at a DECENT price for the time. "Old Ruger" as I like to call them, made interesting guns, or guns that offered equal quality and looks, for a bit less than what the other big names asked for their version.
Nobody made an affordable SA revolver of good quality except Colt ($$$$) when the Single Six, Blackhawk and Bearcat hit the market. The Ruger .44 carbines (tube fed, mag fed semi's, and the lever, and the bolt rifles) were the only alternative to a Winlin carbine in their day too. The Ruger 77/22 was an adult bolt .22, when the other makers pretty much made kid .22's. Ruger also put their 77 rimfire series out in .22 Hornet....nobody else has chambered a domestic repeater in that caliber in ages. The Old Army?
Finest percussion revolver ever made. What about a heavy barrel varmint rifle in .220 Swift? Ruger did it. Mannlicher stocked versions of their M77 bolt rifle. A quality SINGLE SHOT in the #1, and for good measure, a carbine version too (No3)....in some interesting calibers.
I don't see that type of innovative, yet still traditional , thinking much from Ruger anymore. My take is that Old Ruger used to think...."What can we make that hunters/shooters will buy?" Nowadays it seems New Ruger seems to operate on the principal of , "What are people buying, so we can make it?"