Why Doesn't Ruger Make A Compact/CC Auto?

Croyance wrote, "I believe Bill Ruger has made the statement that honest, law-abiding citizens do not need a concealable pistol. Yes, the SP-101 exists. Yes, he has the right to express his opinions. Still, in these parts, thems fighting words. It would be taken by many people as a condemnation of concealed carry."

Consider that many things have been attributed to Mr. Ruger that are not true, as witness the various versions of the magazine ban story that float around the web. Not all versions of that story are true, but they all exist in written form on the web. I did not hear Bill Ruger say that. I have only heard people on the web say that they heard he said that. And, even if he did say that, when did he say it and under what circumstances? In a perfect world, a man should be able to carry his gun openly without need for concealment. In such a world, the statement that an honest, law-abiding citizen would not need a concealable pistol would have a much different and more truthful ring. So, if Bill Ruger said such a thing, was it a condemnation of the 2nd Amendment, or an idealized concept of how things oughta be? Yes, they may be fighting words, but they shouldn't be fighting words based merely on rumor and hearsay. I suspect Mr. Ruger is a hard and opinionated man, but this country was built by hard and opinonated men. None of them were "right" every time. And neither am I, nor, I suspect, any of us.
 
Thanks cuerno de chivo, I remember reading Ruger's letter 13 years ago, but don't still have a copy. I do not own a Mini-14, but I have heard that Ruger does not offer 10 round mags for it, only 5 rounders and that factory 20 and 30 round mags from pre-94 were not sold to the general public. This now sounds true after reading his quotes.
 
If customers want "smaller and lighter", then Smith and Wesson is what they should purchase. That's just the marketplace at work. Few people or institutions in this world can stand unblinking scrutiny, especially scrutiny pre-disposed to finding guilt. I know that I have said things in my life which, if they were recorded for posterity, would cause me grief today. Perhaps that is not true for some but I suspect it is for many of us. If Smith and Wesson now gets "off the hook" because of new ownership and management, perhaps Ruger can get a pass because Bill stepped down. I was so mad and disappointed with Smith and Wesson after their escapade that I traded off most Smiths I owned, at least the newer ones. That was an emotional and not rational response but I never described my actions as being part of a "boycott", nor did I ever suggest to anyone else what they should do. I believe "boycott" is a legacy of the group-think of the Left and prefer letting the marketplace of individuals decide. If consumers dislike a product, or the producer of the product enough to not buy it, so be it. If they like it enough to buy it, so be it. They don't need me to tell them how to think or what to do. And I don't need them doing me the same "favor". There's enough "political correctness" coming from my left flank and I'd prefer not having to watch my right flank also.
 
Okay, let's look at .357 mags from S&W as compared to the .357 mag SP101:

A small SP101 has a 2.25" barrel, is 7.06 " overall, and weighs 25.5 ounces, the big one has a little over 3" barrel, 7.81" overall, and weighs 27 ounces.

S&W mod 60, 2.1", 22.5 ounces
S&W mod 60-LS, 3", 7.5" overall, 24 ounces
S&W mod 360 and 340, 12 ounces
S&W mod 65, 3", 32 ounces (stainless version of the mod 13 that was the FBI issue service revolver)

An SP101 is 5oz less than a mod 65 service revolver, so a 3" SP101 weighs 15.6% less than a 3" mod 65, BUT a 360 weighs 53% less than an SP101. Even a stanless 2" mod 60 weighs over 11% less than the SP101 and is smaller overall.

With KelTec making a sub-7 ounce .32 ACP, S&W making a 12 oz .357, and even Taurus making guns smaller and lighter than an SP101, do we honestly believe that Ruger isn't making a truely compact carry gun because they don't know how?
 
Jeff -

A couple points you might want to consider Jeff :

1. Ruger's philosphy (particularly with revolver) is to build super-strong (often described as "over-engineered") handguns. I don't think Ruger has ever build a revolver, including the original Speed/Security/Service Six models that were not incredibly strong and durable. To be honest, the Smith L-frames probably just barely equal the old "Six" models in strength and durability. In strength and durability, there is no contest between Ruger and Smith. The SP-series is stronger and more durable than any J-frames. The old "Six" models would outlast any K-frame Smith ever built. If you want to really shoot a steady diet of heavy loads, you better buy a GP100 and not a L-frame. How many 29s/629s have had timing, reliabilty and durability problems? How many Redhawks/Super Redhawks? Could Ruger build a "truly compact carry gun" (by your definition). Maybe, I don't know the limits of the investment casting process they use, but it would it really be Ruger? In other words, the very thing(s) you are complaining about is what makes a Ruger a Ruger.

2. Who, in their right minds, wants to shoot full-house .357 Magnums out of a 12 ounce handgun? What good is a 12 ounce, compact revolver if you have to put a grip bigger than the gun itself to control it? There are some people (I'm fun of them) who just prefer a heavier handgun (for accuracy, control, durability, "shootability," etc. who are really to buy a decent pistol belt and holster and carry them. I buy guns to shoot as well as carry. I have no trouble carrying and concealing a SP101--it meets my criteria for a "truly compact carry gun" very well. I guess, where the "rubber meets the road" I can think of few things more useless (for shooting) than a 12 ounce .357 Magnum. If you want a revolver that will outlast you (and that you can shoot more than a half box ammunition without doing nerve damage to your hand), buy the SP101, if you don't buy your 12 ounce Smith--it is a free enterprise system still. (And if we keep on in this ilk, we are way off topic.)
 
1. True, Ruger does build a strong gun. In fact, for hot .44 mag loads I have a 7.5" Redhawk for that very reason. For the record I only know of one Ruger that got out of time and I heard that from a gunsmith. If KelTec can make a P32 I think Ruger could make a small gun with a plastic frame and cast slide.

2. You are correct and I am in my right mind. I have a 342, which is a .38 Spec., and I have never shot anything out of it heavier than 125gr loads. I don't even like shooting it. I can't imagine someone wanting to carry a scandium .357 with 125 gr SJHP or 158 gr SJHP. OUCH!! I know two guys with all steel .357 J-frames and both carry .38 Spec. loads in them.

Right you are we are getting off topic. This was suppose to be about why Ruger doesn't make a small semi-auto, not if an SP101 is a small gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top