1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Unfair Trade hurts U.S. gunmakers

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by i_shoot, Mar 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. i_shoot

    i_shoot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    434
    Just read this & found another reason to thank the wonderful folks in Washington.

    i_shoot
     
  2. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Yah man. Bob Barr is on Glock's payroll. Hm.



    But I really believe that everything else being equal, it's always going to be easier for a gun company in a gun-strict society to export to a more free country, than for a gun company in a free-er country to export to a socialist police state.
     
  3. Beretta687EELL

    Beretta687EELL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,730
    Same situation with autos ... all other jurisdictions protect their domestic auto markets except North America. Bill Malcolm
     
  4. SeldomShoots

    SeldomShoots Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,799
    Location:
    Indiana
    Look who orchestrated the deal with Glock and the government, former House of Representatives member Bob Barr (R-Georgia), and 2008 Libertarian candidate for President. Just one more reason for term limits. Basically, line my pocket and I'll screw the U.S. industries over, seems to be what most politicians are about.

    John E.
     
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    What irony.

    Bill Ruger designed and produced the P85, which had so many teething issues it could not be brought to market for two years, then had a recall because a broken firing pin could fire the gun when the decocker dropped the hammer.

    And the gun is overly heavy for what it is. Weight is an issue for police and military applications, not to mention concealed carry. The P-85 series was designed to be made from stainless steel. Ruger uses lost wax castings for their stainless frames and slides. Cast metal is not as strong as metal machined from billets and is especially not as strong as castings. Because it is a universal design, even the carbon steel slides and carbon steel or aluminum frames are made to the same overweight dimensions. As a result, the P-85 with an aluminum frame weighs a quarter pound more than a SIG-Sauer P-226.

    Also, the Glock 17 was getting the lion's share of replacement sidearm police contracts. There were several reasons, such as weight and pricing, but also that Glock was accepting any kind of police firearm as trade in, whereas most other gun manufacturers were not interested in providing that service (though some distributors were). Glock popularity and sales were a major thorn in Ruger's side.

    Then came the first of the gun ban hearings and many suspect Ruger made his infamous magazine limit statements for very self-serving reasons, throwing gun owners to the wolves instead of uniting and standing up to the anti-gunners. It was widely believed that Ruger picked a 15 round magazine limit to promote his P-85 and then new P-89 and to cut into sales of the Glock 17 with a 17 round magazine. This helped screw gunowners over, and backfired on Ruger because many were so angry that they boycotted Ruger products (and many are still boycotting Ruger, even though Bill Ruger is dead).

    Then Ruger further ticked off gun owners when the P-series magazines were changed to prevent earlier "high capacity" magazines from working in guns made after the magazine limiting legislation. Some police departments were not happy about this either, when it was found that replacement guns often would not work with already purchased early magazines.

    As for milspec, the Ruger P-series has not passed any mil-spec tests, though that has to be taken with a grain of salt because of how badly mismanaged the XM-9 and XM-10 tests were. (The XM-9 tests were held before the P-85 came into production.)

    Ruger has sought over the years to try to make the P-series more competitive with the Glock, but the horse is out of the barn. Even though they are quite rugged and do not suffer the "mystery" blowups of the Glock, few agencies are taking the P-series seriously.

    And without mil-spec bonafides, Ruger is out of the picture for military contracts.

    And now the process has started again. We see the Ruger corporation whining that they can't compete, because "the playing field isn't level". Maybe if Ruger designed a better product they might get more noticed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.