f> Finally, the Army Has Chosen a Pistol. - Page 3 - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

Finally, the Army Has Chosen a Pistol.

This is a discussion on Finally, the Army Has Chosen a Pistol. within the Gun Stories forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; Originally Posted by mndoggie Really?? Please do some homework. It’s not uncommon for modern polymer-framed pistols to use molded-in sheet metal or MIM armatures to ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Gun Stories

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old January 21st, 2017, 01:13 PM   #31
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mndoggie View Post
Really??

Please do some homework.

It’s not uncommon for modern polymer-framed pistols to use molded-in sheet metal or MIM armatures to support the slide assembly as it cycles. Ruger opted to take a page from the SIG Sauer playbook and do away with multi-piece supports in favor of a single-piece chassis. CNC machined from stainless steel and then nitride treated, the ridged chassis features 1.5” integral front and rear slide rails while providing total support for the firing mechanism. This means all of the major moving components of the pistol are sliding against steel support surfaces, not the polymer of the frame. The chassis is the serial numbered component of the gun with the number visible just under the back end of the slide.


https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...erican-pistol/
What is it exactly about "not the polymer of the frame" that you don't understand? Do you understand what a steel pistol frame is? They used to be quite common.




Last edited by Wheelygunner; January 21st, 2017 at 01:15 PM.
Wheelygunner is offline  
Advertisements
Old January 21st, 2017, 01:26 PM   #32
 
mndoggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 3,955
mndoggie is a jewel in the roughmndoggie is a jewel in the roughmndoggie is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelygunner View Post
What is it exactly about "not the polymer of the frame" that you don't understand? Do you understand what a steel pistol frame is? They used to be quite common.
And the Sig the won the contract DOES NOT have a steel pistol frame.

And if you dig into the actual bid spec, virtually the only way to "win" the contract was to build a firearm with a subframe and have different interchangeable grip unit so the unit armorer could put a different sized grip frame on the firearm to adapt to all hand sizes.

I understand completely about "steel frames." Aparently the military doesn't want a full steel frame anymore.

In this thread you never once has complained about Sig not having a full steel frame; you complained about no American manufacturer having anything to compete against Sig.

Ruger does have a model that does. They never submitted it.

Go back and re read all your posts in this thread.
mndoggie is online now  
Old January 21st, 2017, 01:56 PM   #33
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 16
rpeachey is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjphilippona View Post
I don't own one yet, my next purchase will be an FN, they make one fine semi-auto! And made in Fredericksburg Va. USA
The best handgun I own, and have ever owned, is a FNS 9. I love how it shoots and it has been 100% flawless with close to 1k rounds.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
rpeachey is offline  
 
Old January 21st, 2017, 02:01 PM   #34
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 16
rpeachey is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mogg2112 View Post
Just curious if your statement based on first hand experience? Would you volunteer to be shot with 9mm hardball to prove that it's wimpy and not a man stopper? I don't think I would.
I probably would with some of the protective equipment that the military outfits some soldiers with. I have a 9mm for home defenses, and I feel pretty comfortable about its ability to do it's job. However, in true combat, I'd want something bigger than a 9.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
rpeachey is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 03:23 PM   #35
Moderator
 
terry_p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NH, USA.
Posts: 18,364
terry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud ofterry_p has much to be proud of
When was the deadline to submit prototypes?
terry_p is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 05:21 PM   #36
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mndoggie View Post
And the Sig the won the contract DOES NOT have a steel pistol frame.

And if you dig into the actual bid spec, virtually the only way to "win" the contract was to build a firearm with a subframe and have different interchangeable grip unit so the unit armorer could put a different sized grip frame on the firearm to adapt to all hand sizes.

I understand completely about "steel frames." Aparently the military doesn't want a full steel frame anymore.

In this thread you never once has complained about Sig not having a full steel frame; you complained about no American manufacturer having anything to compete against Sig.

Ruger does have a model that does. They never submitted it.

Go back and re read all your posts in this thread.
My apologies, I checked a few more sources and the gun the Army is interested in is the P320. I was thinking of another model. However, that doesn't change that your words about the Ruger American Pistol seemed to indicate that it had a steel frame. I'm sorry if I misread your intentions.

As far as Ruger not submitting their own design, that's a shame. Perhaps they felt that it was too new and unproven? Both the RAP and the P320 are new designs so it's not like one or the other had any proven track record. The RAP certainly would've been significantly cheaper to produce.

The US Armed Forces and Law Enforcement don't seem to like American firearms companies very much. As a taxpayer and as an American, this bugs me. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on arming our military with hardware designed and/or made by foreign owned companies.

Last edited by Wheelygunner; January 21st, 2017 at 08:41 PM.
Wheelygunner is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 07:30 PM   #37
Double D
 
DCD327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North central , PA
Posts: 6,536
DCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry_p View Post
When was the deadline to submit prototypes?
This is from memory. The deadline was JAN 2015, but they didnt get hardly any entries, so they delayed it to FEB 2016.

Everyone had to have 50 pistols turned in for testing.

Beretta had only turned in like 2 of their APX. I never did hear or read what the results were.

Sig turned their (50) P320's in.

CZ had entered at the last minute and turned their 50 in. But the P 09 needed the decocker w/ safety to actually meet specs. The military said the P 09 passed the test with flying colors, but they needed to make the safety/decocker work at the same time. CZ said it was NOT going to screw up a perfectly good pistol, took their 50 ( gold colored) P 09's back. It is my opinion that CZ was never really serious about it anyway, and just wanted to see where their pistol ranked for bragging rights. They already have more worldwide contracts than they can barely fill, and with just building a new plant in Brazil, it was unlikely they would build a new 3rd plant in the USA.

glock entered pistols, G22, but NONE met specs, and they said glock was only there for show.

Ruger just flat out wouldnt play because it cost close to 25 million just to enter into the testing,, which was PAINFULLY obvious it was ALREADY a "fixed" race. The 300+ page required specs sheets were at best, totally ridiculous, and NEVER even specified what caliber.

Ruger had published a statement about it.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But the likely challenge for competitors is navigating the intricacies of the military’s program and costs – reasons why Mike Fifer, chief executive officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, told investors in July during a conference call why Ruger is not participating.

“There’s enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it,” he said.

“If you win it, obviously you’re in the capital receipt for the next 25 years, but I have a feeling competing for it’s going to be a little bit like being hit against a brick wall, and you’ll feel real good when you stop,” he said.

“The risk factor of putting the huge investment of time, people and money into competing for something that there’s really very low likelihood of winning even if you have a much better product,” he said. “And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there.”
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I want our military to have the best, IF, thats what they want. From what I read, the 320 really did well in the XM test, and would be available in 9mm, .40, or 45.

It seems like a good pistol that would fill ALL the niches for caliber demands from different branches, and different opinions & preferences.

IMO, its the best pistol to meet the militarys & multiple federal agencies needs at the moment. And anyone could have any of the three calibers in a full size, compact, or sub compact. So our militarys / government ammo stock piles could all STILL be used, which would probably save billions.

It just seems to make good sense to me.

Theres no way it should have taken 10 years to come to a conclusion about it. But thats wasteful government management playing with politics..

I am hoping Mathis can kick some butts in DOD and change some of that ridiculous behavior.

Here is what they said about the COLT 1911.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Colt
We’re only mentioning the bankruptcy-saddled company to address gray-haired readers that still insist that military should roll back the clock and reintroduce the 1911.

Um, no. Every pistol on this list is more accurate, reliable, has a higher magazine capacity, and better recoil control that the service grade 1911.
DCD327 is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 08:47 PM   #38
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCD327 View Post
This is from memory. The deadline was JAN 2015, but they didnt get hardly any entries, so they delayed it to FEB 2016.

Everyone had to have 50 pistols turned in for testing.

Beretta had only turned in like 2 of their APX. I never did hear or read what the results were.

Sig turned their (50) P320's in.

CZ had entered at the last minute and turned their 50 in. But the P 09 needed the decocker w/ safety to actually meet specs. The military said the P 09 passed the test with flying colors, but they needed to make the safety/decocker work at the same time. CZ said it was NOT going to screw up a perfectly good pistol, took their 50 ( gold colored) P 09's back. It is my opinion that CZ was never really serious about it anyway, and just wanted to see where their pistol ranked for bragging rights. They already have more worldwide contracts than they can barely fill, and with just building a new plant in Brazil, it was unlikely they would build a new 3rd plant in the USA.

glock entered pistols, G22, but NONE met specs, and they said glock was only there for show.

Ruger just flat out wouldnt play because it cost close to 25 million just to enter into the testing,, which was PAINFULLY obvious it was ALREADY a "fixed" race. The 300+ page required specs sheets were at best, totally ridiculous, and NEVER even specified what caliber.

Ruger had published a statement about it.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
But the likely challenge for competitors is navigating the intricacies of the military’s program and costs — reasons why Mike Fifer, chief executive officer of Sturm, Ruger & Company, told investors in July during a conference call why Ruger is not participating.

“There’s enormous cause to participate and an extremely low likelihood for any one company of winning it,” he said.

“If you win it, obviously you’re in the capital receipt for the next 25 years, but I have a feeling competing for it’s going to be a little bit like being hit against a brick wall, and you’ll feel real good when you stop,” he said.

“The risk factor of putting the huge investment of time, people and money into competing for something that there’s really very low likelihood of winning even if you have a much better product,” he said. “And so those are kind of the pros and cons right there.”
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I want our military to have the best, IF, thats what they want. From what I read, the 320 really did well in the XM test, and would be available in 9mm, .40, or 45.

It seems like a good pistol that would fill ALL the niches for caliber demands from different branches, and different opinions & preferences.

IMO, its the best pistol to meet the militarys & multiple federal agencies needs at the moment. And anyone could have any of the three calibers in a full size, compact, or sub compact. So our militarys / government ammo stock piles could all STILL be used, which would probably save billions.

It just seems to make good sense to me.

Theres no way it should have taken 10 years to come to a conclusion about it. But thats wasteful government management playing with politics..

I am hoping Mathis can kick some butts in DOD and change some of that ridiculous behavior.

Here is what they said about the COLT 1911.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Colt
We’re only mentioning the bankruptcy-saddled company to address gray-haired readers that still insist that military should roll back the clock and reintroduce the 1911.

Um, no. Every pistol on this list is more accurate, reliable, has a higher magazine capacity, and better recoil control that the service grade 1911.
Interesting information, thanks for sharing.

If the main issue with the current Beretta M9 is it's underpowered and ineffective 9mm chambering, then why not simply stick with the same platform but re-chamber for .40S&W? Or does the Beretta M9 not function well with this caliber?
Wheelygunner is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 09:06 PM   #39
 
luvmysr9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,842
luvmysr9 will become famous soon enoughluvmysr9 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelygunner View Post
Interesting information, thanks for sharing.

If the main issue with the current Beretta M9 is it's underpowered and ineffective 9mm chambering, then why not simply stick with the same platform but re-chamber for .40S&W? Or does the Beretta M9 not function well with this caliber?
Berettas function flawlessly with .40 S&W, but NATO uses 9mm as their standard caliber of choice. 9mm is readily available most places worldwide & is less expensive. I think .40 would be an excellent choice too. It has plenty of knockdown power & is a good compromise between .45 & 9mm. There are several impressive handgun calibers available, but NATO has it's rules & for the time being insists on 9mm.

The M9 isn't an outdated design by any means. It's the most tested handgun in history. The military decided to make some changes & whether those changes are for the better or for the worse, only time will tell. I just hope the govt. doesn't cheap out on junk magazines like they did with the M9 contract. If they had gone with factory "PB Beretta" or "Mec-gar" brands instead of the lowest bidder you would almost never hear about malfunctions of any kind. Cheap *** "airtronic" & "checkmate" mags are what gave the M9 an undeserved bad reputation among soldiers.
luvmysr9 is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 09:53 PM   #40
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmysr9 View Post
Berettas function flawlessly with .40 S&W, but NATO uses 9mm as their standard caliber of choice. 9mm is readily available most places worldwide & is less expensive. I think .40 would be an excellent choice too. It has plenty of knockdown power & is a good compromise between .45 & 9mm. There are several impressive handgun calibers available, but NATO has it's rules & for the time being insists on 9mm.

The M9 isn't an outdated design by any means. It's the most tested handgun in history. The military decided to make some changes & whether those changes are for the better or for the worse, only time will tell. I just hope the govt. doesn't cheap out on junk magazines like they did with the M9 contract. If they had gone with factory "PB Beretta" or "Mec-gar" brands instead of the lowest bidder you would almost never hear about malfunctions of any kind. Cheap *** "airtronic" & "checkmate" mags are what gave the M9 an undeserved bad reputation among soldiers.
One of the main complaints about the M9 is it's chambering in 9mm which has shown to be underpowered on the battlefield. It may work fine on the streets, but the battlefield is something else altogether. A common joke among military personal is that you would be better off throwing your M9 at an adversary then shooting him with one.

If they plan on sticking with the 9mm because of NATO, then the only other reason I can see for switching over from the M9 to the P320 is for the interchangeable modular frame/grip design to suit the smaller hands of the (unfortunately) up and coming female combat soldiers, which is a costly and stupid reason to switch. These are some the reasons why it's not a good idea to have women in combat roles, it causes too many problems, costs too much money and could end up costing people their lives as well.

If the military needs to take 10 years and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to require a pistol that is suitable enough for a uni-sex force then that's a problem.

Last edited by Wheelygunner; January 21st, 2017 at 11:34 PM.
Wheelygunner is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 11:23 PM   #41
Double D
 
DCD327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North central , PA
Posts: 6,536
DCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelygunner View Post
If the military needs to take 10 years and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to require a pistol that is suitable enough for a uni-sex force then that's a problem.
All Ive ever ran in my M9's / 92fs were either beretta or Mecgar mags, and since about 1989/90, I have never had a failure. My 92F probably seen over 10,000 rounds. The beretta 92 is a good pistol. Not as comfy with the fat grip, and NOT as accurate as my CZ's. But bottom line, it will go bang no matter what you do, or dont do to it. Its flawless in that regard. 100% reliable IMO. Awesome combat pistol. Ive never had a beretta 40 cal, but Ive also never heard anyone complain about it.

IMO, I think there may be some better models out there now in accuracy and ergonomics, but at what price? Beretta did up their game on accuracy with the 92A3, and tried to slim the grips some. They finally made the front sight adjustable. But it may have been too little too late.
The P 320 seems like a good choice because of the three styles, and 3 calibers. The 320's reviews and XM test data are great. Ive never handled or shot one though.

Im pretty neutral on the replacement and the 320. I just want out guys to have the best tools they can get.

If Mathis has anything to do with it, it may not be over yet.

His philosophy is " I dont create a problem where there aint one".

And he is in charge now. The DOD still has to approve the whole thing. So we shall see.
DCD327 is offline  
Old January 21st, 2017, 11:32 PM   #42
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCD327 View Post
The P 320 seems like a good choice because of the three styles, and 3 calibers. The 320's reviews and XM test data are great. Ive never handled or shot one though.
The ability to swap out between three different calibers, while a good idea for the civilian, seems like a bad one for the military. Who is going to be carrying around pistol cases full of parts and all that different ammo on the battlefield?

Quote:
If Mathis has anything to do with it, it may not be over yet.

His philosophy is " I dont create a problem where there aint one".

And he is in charge now. The DOD still has to approve the whole thing. So we shall see.
Right, the Liberal/Democrats LOVE wasting other peoples money on frivolous projects. Things will be different now. They may end up sticking with the M9 or modifying it slightly, or go with something else entirely.
Wheelygunner is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2017, 12:06 AM   #43
Double D
 
DCD327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North central , PA
Posts: 6,536
DCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to beholdDCD327 is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelygunner View Post
The ability to swap out between three different calibers, while a good idea for the civilian, seems like a bad one for the military. Who is going to be carrying around pistol cases full of parts and all that different ammo on the battlefield?

Right, the Liberal/Democrats LOVE wasting other peoples money on frivolous projects. Things will be different now. They may end up sticking with the M9 or modifying it slightly, or go with something else entirely.
Thats a good point, it wouldnt make any sense for each branch to have several different calibers. But I was kinda looking at it more to a per branch to branch advantage.

The marines could carry the 45 they want & like.

The Army could go to 40 if they want.

The AF or Navy could stick with 9 if they want.

The branches all seem to have different wants & needs.

That one pistol could fill them all.

The whole nato caliber thing might also come into play.
Ive read & heard many complaining about the 223 and wanting to go to 308 for many years, but the nato caliber crap seems to be stopping that.
And theres a thing I would agree on, we should go to the 308 in an AR platform. IMO, You dont need to carry a 1000 rounds if your primary weapon is dropping and killing the enemy with one well placed shot. I never really cared for the 223 myself. It was never designed to kill, only cause massive nasty wounds. I would much prefer longer range accuracy, stopping power, and one shot one kill . Having machine guns that also run 308, that always seemed to make sense to me.

It will be interesting to see where this whole thing ends up with the new administration.
DCD327 is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2017, 12:22 AM   #44
 
Wheelygunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 49
Wheelygunner is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCD327 View Post
Thats a good point, it wouldnt make any sense for each branch to have several different calibers. But I was kinda looking at it more to a per branch to branch advantage.

The marines could carry the 45 they want & like.

The Army could go to 40 if they want.

The AF or Navy could stick with 9 if they want.

The branches all seem to have different wants & needs.

That one pistol could fill them all.
Good point.

Quote:
And there is a thing I would agree on, we should go to the 308 in an AR platform. IMO, You don't need to carry a 1000 rounds if your primary weapon is dropping and killing the enemy with one well placed shot. I never really cared for the 223 myself. It was never designed to kill, only cause massive nasty wounds. I would much prefer longer range accuracy, stopping power, and one shot one kill . Having machine guns that also run 308, that always seemed to make sense to me.
I was just thinking this the other day, on how the militaries of the past had more powerful rifles then they do today, at least at longer ranges. I have read reports that talk about how wonderful and devastating the .223/5.56NATO is, how it causes massive wounds and can drop deer with a single shot and I've read other reports that say it's not very effective on the battlefield and the person writing the article claims to have never seen a single one shot kill with one. Which is it? I guess it's all about capacity and light weight these days.

Quote:
It will be interesting to see where this whole thing ends up with the new administration.
I think the Trump Administration will take a practical, less costly approach. We've already seen Trump getting fumed over the ridiculous costs of the Air Force 1 project. Trump being a business man knows full well that you don't get rich by over-spending and needlessly wasting money.

Last edited by Wheelygunner; January 22nd, 2017 at 01:26 AM.
Wheelygunner is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2017, 07:58 AM   #45
 
Joenaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 513
Joenaper is on a distinguished road
We want our military to have the absolute best available NOW.

We want American made.

Those two requirements don't have to be mutually exclusive.

350 page requirements documents and 10 years to decide is absolute insanity and what leads to having more civilians than active military in our defense. The technology has changed a lot during those 10 years and our troops have been disadvantaged while beuracrats edit and re-edit requirements. You can't let the desire for perfection stand in the way of getting things done now with something great. This isn't some catchy Glock advertisement, it's taking care of those who take care of us.

Arm our troops with the best American made handgun available now (sure it can have a handful of unique military requirements). If there's a flaw, replace them - in the end, it's cheaper and safer for our troops than taking 10 years to make an expensive decision.

There's an almost trite mantra in the Silicon Valley that applies here, "Perfect products never ship!"

My $.02
Joenaper is offline  
Reply

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Gun Stories

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Army finally going to hollow points JohnR Ammo Dump 38 July 27th, 2015 04:43 PM
Finally....an old army lethemgo Black Powder 8 February 24th, 2015 05:56 PM
Finally got one !!! OLD ARMY THAT IS IS!!! Wdodd Black Powder 3 June 26th, 2014 06:49 AM
For Sale: new army 1858 44cal Black powder pistol dedeye Firearms 0 August 18th, 2012 08:04 AM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.