Ruger Forum banner

Metal Trigger Guard VS. Poly Trigger Guard

35K views 47 replies 19 participants last post by  snowflake3838 
#1 ·
I know there has been a lot of talk and threads on the new poly trigger housings on the 10-22's.
If you like the metal housing, I'll give you a reason to like it more.
If you like the Poly housing, this may or may not change your mind.
If you don't care, this post may or may not matter to you.
I just bought a new 10-22 to do some accuracy experiments on. It has the Poly housing.
Myself, I really liked the metal housing and was very disappointed (Peed off) when Ruger changed it.
I would have bought a used rifle, but it was important to me to have a new rifle for my experiments.
I ordered a new metal trigger housing from Power Custom for $25.00. (you can get the metal housing, metal trigger and mag release for $35.00.)

I measured the inside of the new poly trigger housing. It varied as much as .004" in width inside the housing.
The new metal housing I got was painted inside and out. I took a medium stone and smoothed the inside of the housing. I just smoothed the paint and did not get to bare metal. It ended up as smooth as a baby's butt.
The metal housing only varied 1/2 of one thousanth of an inch (.0005") on the inside of the housing. Pretty darn good.

Here is the problem. If you want the best possible trigger job without spending the money for a Jard or other custom trigger group, the metal trigger housing is going to give you the best and longest lasting trigger.

I measured the inside of the poly housing where the striker pin was and it measured .5075" wide. I then measured the inside of the housing where the sear/trigger hole was and it measured .5105" wide. That is a difference of .003".

When doing a trigger job, you want the ledge/notch of the striker to match up in the same place with the edge of the sear every time.
With .003" difference, the two surfaces can mate in different places every time the gun is cocked. It can also cam at angles.
Both are not condusive to a top quality trigger pull and can increase wear of the two surfaces.
It will let the trigger pull change a very small amount each time you pull the trigger.
True, you could put shims in to make up the difference, but which side do you put them on.
The poly housing is slightly squeezed when put in the top of the receiver and it can change a little every time it's taken out or put back in.

You may think that I'm being a little anal, but as a retired gunsmith, who always had a micrometer within arms reach and checked everything, it's really not.
It's the attention to the small details that make the most accurite, longest lasting weapons with the most repeatable trigger.

I have used shims on the inside of the metal housing, but I knew that the inside dimentions were not going to change.
A cast housing that is machined will always be more consistant than an injected poly piece, especially one as large as the 10-22 trigger group.

Bottom line. if you want the best trigger that will keep a good trigger for the longest time before it needs touching up, the metal housing is hands down the way to go.

If you are going to change out the poly housing, you will need the old style striker and the two bushings that fit in the sides of the striker. You will have to find a old style striker.
The striker in the poly housing does not have the bushings (it's wider) and looks like a really rough cast piece. The metal is cast, not machined like the striker in the old model so I would think it not hold as good of a trigger job and not wear as long as the old striker.
The old one; really good quality machined metal.(I'm 90 % sure it was a cast piece that was in the poly housing, it hit the garbage can as soon as it came out of the housing).

Please don't make this a which is better post, we have had enough of them.
I posted this for info purposes for those who want the best possible trigger in a stock trigger housing.
I'm a retired gunsmith and have done a lot of 10-22 triggers, so I do know what I am talking about.
I now sometimes help out Scott at S&S Sporting. If you want a really good trigger in your 10-22, contact Scott @ 208-313-1570.
He can change out the poly trigger group far cheaper than buying a Jard,
You will need to send the poly group as some of the parts will be needed from it. He can just do a trigger job on the poly housing if your money is tight.
The only improvement Ruger could sight with the Poly group was that the trigger guard would not break as easy if the rifle was dropped. I think we all know the real reason. They saved about 75 cents per rifle.

Best Regards, John K
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The new metal housing I got was painted inside and out. I took a medium stone and smoothed the inside of the housing. I just smoothed the paint and did not get to bare metal. It ended up as smooth as a baby's butt.
The metal housing only varied 1/2 of one thousanth of an inch (.0005") on the inside of the housing.
What would this housing have measured if you has not smoothed it out?
I'm not claiming that one is better then the other. I have a 10/22 with the metal trigger housing and a Charger with the plastic housing. I have smoothed and polished both triggers myself and frankly can't tell the difference. I guess one of these days I may swap out trigger groups and see if I can tell a difference then.
 
#4 ·
Thanks for the post! What would the difference be in practical accuracy? For the casual shooter, with a normal trigger pull (not too light) and iron sights?

I have a 10/22 with the poly trigger guard and was thinking about swapping it out, but if the poly trigger is more accurate than I am, then I probably won't notice the difference.

Again, thanks for an informative post.
 
#6 ·
the only real gripe i have with the plastic is that every one of them i have ever felt has had a slight wiggle to the housing, like it does not fit just right. i tried to track it down on mine, the pins, the stock, etc etc, and i finally got it to go away: i bought an OEM aluminum housing. now it doesn't even budge.
 
#8 ·
First let me state that I am not a retired gunsmith. I am at best a casual shoot, but have been shooting for 35 years.

Second, I want to thank Ruger for continuing to produce affordable, quality firearms. The 10/22 is an icon in the firearms industry and very representative of affordable quality that they produce.

I have owned several 10/22s over my life and they all have shot the same.....which is pretty good. I currently own a metal trigger housing 10/22 with all the bells and whistles, a stock 10/22 DSP, and a Charger.

I can tell no difference in accuracy between the rifles....the stock, synthetic trigger housing DSP shoots every bit as good as the high zoot 10/22 with the metal housing. There is no discernible difference.

Now the OP has made some statements concerning what he believes are facts about these trigger housings. He states that, after measuring each housing, the variances in the synthetic housings will cause a trigger job to degrade faster. But they are only his opinions, which I respect. Everyone has opinions and the right to state those opinions. But let's not get opinions mixed up with facts.

I will be a believer that the new trigger housings are inferior when someone shoots a million rounds through both types and documents that the synthetic housing degrades accuracy more than the metal housing. I want to see some proof.

Until then I intend to shoot and enjoy my Rugers ..........
 
#9 ·
dksac2, you bring up some very good points. I also am not a gunsmith but have worked with metal in a prototype shop for 25+ years. I do not doubt that the metal housing will bring out the best in the 10/22 but how many of us can actually shoot that well to notice the differance?

Your post this one of those that I will make a copy of and keep filed away just in case I get involved with another 10/22 build.

I think the reason Ruger went with the plastic trigger piece is strength. On one of those Wed. afternoon gun shows, I can't remember which one, the host was at Ruger's and they were showing both trigger guards being subjected to a drop test. The plastic one passed, the metal one broke. I really don't mind the palstic trigger guard on mine but I just using it for plinking anyway.

Thanks again for your time and the write up.
 
#10 ·
I bought a Volquartsen TG2000 trigger group to replace the plastic one in my SR-22. Although this has nothing to do with the inside measurements of the TG, the outside measurements on the VQ was .948". The plastic one measured .960" and the opening in the SR-22 housing was .976". When the VQ was inserted there was side play of the whole trigger housing that I was concerned about. Interestingly, once pinned in place, this play dissapeared for some reason. I realize that this has nothing to do with the trigger parts aligning or repeating with each other, but why would VQ make their outside dimensions 12 thou smaller than an already .015 smaller part? I can almost toss this TG into the housing from across the table.
 
#11 · (Edited)
These were just observations that I made.

I measure everything and usually put the measurements in my gun notes for that type of firearm. Comes in handy later.

I don't know how big if any of a difference it will make, but have has a couple of 10-22's come into the shop where the sear and striker were at such an angle to each other, the gun would not fire, it was hanging up on the sear/striker.
Shims fixed the problem.
Having the sear/striker 100% or as close as possible should make a difference in the accuracy of the trigger let off and make for a trigger job that should last longer.

I have no proof of this, but am anal and feel that it could help, even if just a little bit. Closer tollerences are always better in guns and any other machinery. The trigger/striker are stoned to be parrelel. If put in an assembly that is off by.003, the quality of the stoning of the trigger/sear is comprimised.

As for the guy who questioned the stoning of the paint inside of the trigger assembly, it was painted with a kind of wrinkle paint which was not smooth.
What you are asking is if I evened out the inside of the housing. I was using a 1/4" stone. I only worked on it for 3 minutes max. Did I even out the entire inside as to tollerence variations, no, just smoothed paint. When done, the inside was very smooth and parts will move easier on a smooth surface. .0001" is a very tight tollerance and that is what the difference in the trigger assemnbly was. Really can't get any better than that on a production part. Stoning a poly part makes for a rough mess and there is still the possibility for a little flex.

Best Regards, John K
 
#12 · (Edited)
Thanks for the replies. As for the expensive trigger assembly, the pins held it in which is most likely why the outside measurment didn't make a difference once the pins were in, because that's what holds it in.
The metal parts are available from Clark Custom Guns, Inc. Home Page
Can I say the metal trigger guard with it's tighter tollerances has made my 10-22 any more accurite or the trigger better, no I can't.
I can say that anything mechanical will almost always improve when made with parts that have tighter tollerences.
Look at re worked parts that go into the stock trigger guards. The triggers are much better.
Will the holes in the poly housing open up faster than the metal housing, I don't know that either. I don't know how Ruger's poly compares to glocks poly material. Glocks has held up well.
An example would be the first Honda Civics that Honda came out with.
The rod bearings were fitted to the ten thousnsths, not one thousanth like the Chevy was. That motor went 550 thousand miles before dropping an valve. It never spun a bearing or gauled one.
Bottom line is that I like the metal trigger group, trigger and mag release better.
Plastic is for toys. That said, if you buy a poly weapon, You know that you are getting a poly gun. I carry a Glock. It's ugly, but works 100% which is why I carry it. Ruger did not give me a choice. I can carry a 100% metal pistol if I want one.
I was upset when Ruger took a rifle made 100% from metal and put plastic parts in it. That did not sit well with me, I was not given a choice, but that's just my opinion.
I think the metal trigger guard breaking excuse for changing to plastic is a bunch or BS. Thousands of rifles have metal trigger guards.
I think they saved $1.50 a gun, that why they went to poly.
I think that my trigger is better with the metal housing and will last longer. I could be wrong, but I think it's true and that's all that matters to me.
Change it to the metal parts or leave it. It's what you want to do and what makes you feel better. I would think no less of you or give you a bad time about it.
Consider what I found, draw your own conclusions and then do as you wish.

Best Regards, John K
 
#27 ·
.
Bottom line is that I like the metal trigger group, trigger and mag release better.
Plastic is for toys. That said, if you buy a poly weapon, You know that you are getting a poly gun. I carry a Glock. It's ugly, but works 100% which is why I carry it. Ruger did not give me a choice. I can carry a 100% metal pistol if I want one.
I'm not sure I understand this one. You say plastic is for toys and in the next breath you validate the Glock. ... and Ruger does give you a polymer choice. Its called an SR9.

I was upset when Ruger took a rifle made 100% from metal and put plastic parts in it. That did not sit well with me, I was not given a choice, but that's just my opinion.
As a consumer, sir, you do have a choice, you can choose not to buy the firearm if you object to the plastic parts in it.
 
#13 · (Edited)
More 10-22 Measurements

I measured the hammer from the poly housing, it was 500" thick and does not have bushings like the old model. It is a machined piece and had the worst trigger pull of any quality rifle that I have every handled.
The re worked old style hammer makes shooting good groups a snap. I got a best of just under 1" at 50 yards with cheap Rem yellow box ammo. This is a carbine with the barrel band on.
Stock except for the re worked trigger group. No other changes. I would have not been able to shoot that good of a group with the stock trigger. It was too hard to pull and hold the rifle steady. It was Federal Classic ammo, not match ammo.
The old style hammer with the bushings was .501.5" Wide
We have .0015 less side play than The new style hammer which measures.500"" wide.
Now the housings.
The Poly housing is .520.5" wide.
The metal housing is .518" wide.
This adds up to an additional side play of .003.5 in the Poly housing.
This does effect the mating of the sear and striker, so the side to side measurements favor the metal housing.
These are all new parts.
Will it make a difference in the consistancy of the trigger pull, I think so, but then again, how much, I really can't say, but I do know on any gun, the closer the tollerences, the better the trigger pull and less wear due to the parts hitting in the same place every time.
What can I prove, nothing, but therory backs me up.
One thing I did do was to put a .004" shim on each side of the hammer when I re asembled the trigger group. It did make a difference that I could feel as there was less side to side play when pulling the trigger, .008" less.. It did help, maybe that adds to the theory that I am right.

Best Regards, John K
 
#14 ·
Ruger went to poly because aluminum was more abrasive in the gang moulds than polymer & was wearing out individual cavities at different rates.
Moulds are expensive, you don't throw one out if one cavity goes bad, you keep on running with that mould, but at reduced casting capacity & efficiency, since you've got a dead space in one or more cavities.

The variance in tolerances that was resulting from uneven mould wear was creating a higher rejection rate than it should have, making it hard to keep parts within tolerance ranges, and was almost making the alloy assemblies something of a hand-fitted prospect.

With polymer, the moulds last longer, wear more evenly, and stick to more uniform tolerances resulting in a lower parts rejection rate and a more efficient assembly process.

It improved efficiency as the primary goal, and it did save the company some money in reducing the rejection rate, improving the mould life & full capacity pour rates, and in requiring less assembly time in installing smaller parts in the more consistent polymer main assembly.

Denis
 
#16 · (Edited)
Thank You, this may have been some of their reason.
Outside dimentions make little differences and take a long time to change. The inside of the housing is machined and molds have nothing to do with that.
It just costs them a little more to machine the inside. Poly gives then more profit because less machining is involved, just drilling holes.
Replacing molds does cost money, but a slight price increase would more than cover that.
My metal housing varied .0001", the poly .004", so there is a big difference in tollerances.
I'd spend $5.00 more to keep the 10-22 the way it was, and they would make a profit off that 5 bucks in the long run and myself and every other person who really wanted a 10-22 would pay it. The 10-22 is kind of a cult gun.
Why not make the receiver out of Poly and put metal rails in it, mold poly around a rifled barrel liner, change most of the pins to Poly, go to a cheap plastic stock.
This is a bunch of BS.
In the 1970's, a Ruger 22 pistol retailed $99.95, a Colt Python just over $200.
Prices go up due to inflation. Most gun owners would gladly pay a few more $$ more for quality.
The 10-22 is a lower priced .22. People buy them because they want one, not just price alone. There are lower priced .22's than the 10-22. If price alone was the factor, then buy the cheaper .22.
The 10-22 is a rifle that people really want. They will pay a little more to have one with the same quality as they have always had.
Guns are different than most products and so are the people who buy them.
If they jumped the price $50.00, people would scream, but a few $$$ to keep the same quality will not make a difference to 98% of the gun buyers.
Just about every gun out there has some cast parts on them. I don't see them changing major parts to Poly, only Ruger. (this does not take into account some revolvers made by other company's, but they still offer all metal guns also)
Ruger has been showing a bad pattern in the last several years.
Look at the Savage. Almost all machined high quality metal. They cost a little more in some types of models, less or the same in others, but I'll gladly pay the difference.
Their bolt rifles cost no more than Rugers, but are miles ahead in quality and inovations such as the Accu-Stock and Accu-Trigger.
The management and bean counters at Ruger need to take a good look at their compitition. I have and it's a no brainer.
I'm a retired gunsmith, I've seen the changes in guns for years. Most have changed some in quality of internal finish due to labor costs, but not a lot of major changes unless it's improved their product or been some stupid required safety feature. So when it comes to gun quality, I know what I am talking about. Just about all firearms have gone down slightly in quality, but it's the major changes in guns like the 10-22 that gets my goat up.
There are other examples, but not as big as the change in the 10-22. I love this rifle, otherwise I would not bother writing this post. I would buy another if it were not for thr fact that I love the 10-22 and so many accessories are available for them.
My point as to money is well made when you see what most people pay for parts to make them better.


Best Regards, John K
 
#17 ·
Just to add a little fuel to the fire.........I just went shopping for a bolt action 17 HMR and bought a Savage 93R17 BRJ because it was much cheaper than a Ruger. I liked the looks of the Ruger, but you just can't argue with the AccuTrigger......it is really nice. Savage also has a huge selelction of models to choose from........
 
#18 · (Edited)
That is the type of thing that I am talking about.
You will find the Savage more accurite and better finished also. If you should ever need a part, you can get it without sending the rifle bak to the plant and no restristed parts !
The parts are all machined metal of the best quality steel, not cast (except for the trigger guard).
Their QC program is second to none.
It's a shame. You will like the savage.
Had Ruger put out a better .17, they would have had another sale.
When you add in the price of an $80 trigger job that you don't have to get, so that you can actually hold still enough to hit something, you saved even more
I plan on buying the Savage for my wife.
BTW, if you want it even more accurite, contact Scott at S&S Sporting/savagegunsmithing. He does an accuracy package where he cuts a really good target crown, beds the action and does somethine else with the action that will improve your groups even more.
Scott works on any type of weapon and his accuracy jobs on Savage ,Ruger, Rem, Win etc. are first rate.
On the Savages, if he rebarrels it, he guarentees .3" five shot groups at 100 yds. Nobody gives that kind of guarentee and he sticks by it.You can reach him @ 208-313-1570. His work is as good as it gets
I have a friend who has an accurized Savage .17, and nothing in it's range is safe. He kills more varments, coyotes etc than you would believe. He has a 320 acre ranch.

Best Regards, John K
 
#21 · (Edited)
Good write up.
The part about tollerances smells like what comes out of a Bulls rear end.
The trigger group interior where the parts fit is machined on the metal housing. Poly molding just is not as well as controlled in that big of space. My mics did not lie to me and I know how to use them.
My metal trigger group interior varied by only 1/10th of one thousanth of an inch on the inside where the trigger parts go.
The poly varied by .035", 35 times more and it varied between .004" and .003" from side to side.
It would be much easier to fit parts to a trigger group interior with specs as tight as the one that I got than one that varied by .0399".
Unless they are having major problems with their CNC machines or they are total junk, somebody's jurking your chain.
I'm not worried about dropping my weapon on the trigger guard, neither are most othe manufacturers.
I'm not buying it.
The difference has been exposed and now they are doing the two step.
They may have had some pin holes in the aluminum castings. Throw them back into the melting pot. The guy said both housings cost the same.
I was born at night, but not last night :p
Just one more PR problem for Ruger.
Next time someone talks to a big wig, ask them why they can't cut scope ring scallops without them being all over the place on the mini.
The old one's never had those type of problems, even with worn equipment.
Also, why does a rifle that won't eject just get put in a box and shipped rather than being fixed before leaving the factory. I'm talking about the new Mini I just bought.
I refuse to send the weapon back to Ruger, I fixed it myself. That way I know it's right.

I also fully understand liability, buy why do Rugers have the worst triggers on the market. No way you can shoot a group when it takes a man, small boy and old man just to pull the trigger, gritty piece of crap it is.
All of this is just my opinion, yours may vary.
None of this is my first rodeo, so I know what I'm talking about.
Best Regards, John K
 
#24 ·
Not your fault Denis.
I'm kind of anal and measure just about any gun that I ever took apart. It all went in a large folder for that brand of weapon along with all the schmatics and anythine else I could get my hands on.
As a new gunsmith, I worked for an old gunsmith that had thousands of pages of old gun repair manuels no longer offered for years and info on old guns that you just can't find anymore.
I copied it all.
I ended up giving it to a good gunsmith friend when I retired.
I wish I still had them, but copied the folders on weapons that I still have.
If I needed to make a new part, I already had the specs.
It saved me on gun models no longer made.
It also alerted me when there were changes made to a weapon.
A good library and lots of specs on firearms makes a gunsmiths job a lot easier.
It helped me more times than I can remember.

Best Regards, John K
 
#23 ·
It's a low-mid priced .22LR rifle, nothing more. It's an excellent rifle, I love mine, Ruger's doing something right. Jeff's done the rodeo circuit and I've ridden a couple of bulls myself. No complaints w/ the shootability of my polymer triggers. The only thing I don't like about them is the gun loses some wood and steel character.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Would you pay $5.00 to have a 10-22 like were made 5 years ago or even 2 years ago. I know that I sure would.
It's no different than our so called Government.
One small change at a time and maybe nobody will notice.
Make a big change and people stand up and take notice.
I'm just tired of people trying to ram BS down my throat.
Call me old codger, but I'm not going to just sit and take it anymore.
Not threatning violence, but I will no longer keep my mouth shut and be a good little boy.
That is why things are the way they are today with just about everything.
No body has cut mine off yet and they never will.
You can take the crap if you wish, but I was not raised to be a sheepeople and never will be.

90% of the kids today are fed a bunch of BS and told to never question anything, and you know what, most don't.
I hope the good Lord takes me before I have to see much more of this.
It just all makes me sick. Ruger's changes are just one more small thing in a world of changes that are for no good.
Stand up and make your voice heard about everything that is wrong from the way guns are made to the way they run the country.
It's the only way things will ever change for the better.

Best Regards, John K
 
#26 ·
Like I posted in another thread, I had to replace two aluminum trigger gaurds(one bent one cracked) and so far no polymer gaurds .......yet, and my 9 year old with a factory trigger can hit coke cans at 100+ yards 9 out of 10 times (or better) with bulk ammo and without the help of a man and an old man to pull the trigger.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Give me the money for an SR-9, I'll buy one.
Going from a metal trigger asssembly to a plastic one is a big change, one I don't want and don't think is needed. The gun has been metal for about 36 or so years. Why change it now except for bean counters.

As for the Glock, my point is that it has always been a plastic gun, the ruger has not.
When it comes to self protection, I carry what is the most reliable. I like my colt .45's much better and they are 98.5% reliable, the Glock is 100% (at least mine is). I don't carry my 10-22 for protection.

To those who keep breaking trigger guards, I'm sorry, really am. I've never dropped a rifle on the trigger guard, but if I do, I'll buy a new one.
I don't need people to protect me from myself like the government is trying to do now and has for a number of years.
Good God, how did we ever live without all of the protections we have today ?
I guess you guys just don't get it.
The changes Ruger has made may be OK with you, and that's fine. I would never try to tell you what to like, buy or do. That's your business.
I'm expressing disatisfaction with something that is an ikon and now has been changed for the worst in my opinion. That is all.
And I do believe I'm right when talking about closer tollerances making for a better trigger, again, my opinion. It's been true on every firearm that I have ever worked on unless you get the tollerances way too close, which is not the problem in this case.
My best to you all. You are welcome to express your opinions to me anytime. We may not agree or we may, but I would never discourage you not to say what is on your mind.

Best Regards, John K
 
#30 ·
actually john it reminds me a lot of the guitar industry in the 70's. Leo Fender sold out in the late 60's and gibson sold to a conglomerate. Both corporate entities and the people that ran them apparently felt like they were selling a name, not a product. they insituted widespread cost cutting measures that dogged both brands for years. Fender finally had to shut down in the 80's and relearn how to make guitars under new and smaller ownership, while relying on japanese-made fenders to keep them afloat!

I am like you, i keep buying rugers because i have always liked the name, but i think the new single six i just bought that has already gone back to the factory will be my last. there are plenty of used rugers out there.
 
#31 · (Edited)
actually john it reminds me a lot of the guitar industry in the 70's. Leo Fender sold out in the late 60's and gibson sold to a conglomerate. Both corporate entities and the people that ran them apparently felt like they were selling a name, not a product. they insituted widespread cost cutting measures that dogged both brands for years. Fender finally had to shut down in the 80's and relearn how to make guitars under new and smaller ownership, while relying on japanese-made fenders to keep them afloat!

I am like you, I keep buying rugers because I have always liked the name, but i think the new single six i just bought that has already gone back to the factory will be my last. there are plenty of used rugers out there.
I'm with you on this one.
I have a 44 Mag Flat Top. The polish on weapon is so smooth and the bluing so beautiful that you can see right into it for what looks like 1/2 inch.
You cock it and hear all the clicks (it has not been converted and never will).
The trigger breaks like glass.
It is a beautiful pistol in 99% condition.
My security six has seen ore abuse than any revolver I have ever sen. It still looks great and works 100%
If I want a Ruger, I too will buy and older one when quality mattered.
Over the years, I have sold quite a few Rugers that I wish I still had.
When it comes to new weapons, Savage would be my first choice.
In a lever action, Marlin and so on.
Ruger has a great name, but with the quality, trigger pulls, finish and now materials going down hill, they will loose business as time goes along.
The things will get even tighter for them.
I hope they wake up.
As I said, people who buy firearms are a special breed. They will for the most part pay a little more for quality, fit and finish.
There will always be people who want the cheapest weapon they can get.
High Point, RG and a number of other weapons made in china will fill the bill for them.
My hope is that enough people will contact Ruger that they will wake up.
Raise prices a little if they have to.
Advertise weapons that were made like in the 1970's and produce them.
If they build it, people will come, myself included.

Best regards, John K
 
#34 · (Edited)
Me too. Sorry about the politics, it just kind of fit with the post.
My hope is that Ruger will look at every weapon they have, one at a time.
Then looking at the comments the CEO gets.
Start with the one's with the most complaints and go from there.
Figure how much of a price increase there may be or a better way of doing things without a major price increase for tooling and come up with some real solutions.
Just look at Savage. Their profits just depend on firearems.
They have the right people making the decisions because their firearms are far ahead of most others at prices that are close to or even less than the others. If Savage can do it, so can Ruger.
Don't forget Ruger makes a lot of money making castings of quite a few things that are not firearm related. They don't just have to depend on firearms for their profits.
From there the engineers, bean counters and people who are on the production lines that are good long time employees with common sence can look at the problems and maybe figure out a solution for each. Get several good gunsmiths in there also.
The lawyers can sit in the back somewhere in the hard metal chairs and be given weak coffee and two day old donuts, chocolate covered with sprinkles so that their butts can get as big as their inflated egos and hourly charges.

Best Regards, John K
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top