Ruger...What do you think?

[JasonAC556]

So, Ruger has held back a few receivers (and obviously complete rifles) for warranty replacement purposes. How do you feel about this? Should Ruger have sold these rifles to the public, or are you glad they held back a few to take care of customer needs?

Let's hear it!

[JDP7]

They should hold them for replacement. I want to send mine back soon for a rebuild. If my receiver was toast, it would be nice to have it replaced. Gotta love good customer service.

[CIB]

I think it was excellent foresight on Rugers part. I mean here we are almost 22 years after 922o, and the warranty is still good. I mean c'mon, is there any other mfg'er out there that can/will do this??? I think it's f'in great!! :D

[mmilo31]

I agree.
If a law was passed that no other F/A receivers could be produced, and your rifle (with a lifetime warranty) broke how would you feel if they said you were S.O.L.?

[XxLT250RxX]

You opinion on this is going to be based on one thing, do you already have one or are you looking to buy one. If you have one you may need service. If you don’t and are looking to by one it would be nice if new ones were available. Of course once you buy one then you are going to want them to hold the rest of them in case you need part, service or replacement.

[garandman]

I voted "its good customer service."

I only voted that way cuz of the current legal system, where to my understanding, if you destroy your receiver, they can't simply make you a new one. Only a swap out of transferrables is legal to my understanding.

Knowing what I know about Bill Clinton Ruger, and seeing how Ruger won't sell 30 rd mags to the peasantry today, Ruger didn't hold them back for customer service.

They held them cuz Ruger thinks only da gubbermint should have FA.

Honoring the warranty now is simply a matter of legal necessity, not cuz they are swell fellers.

If I'm wrong, I do apologize. But that's my opinion, based on what I see and know to be true.

[ArevaloSOCOM]

No honest man has a need for one, they should torch them.

[JasonAC556]

I voted "its good customer service."

I only voted that way cuz of the current legal system, where to my understanding, if you destroy your receiver, they can't simply make you a new one. Only a swap out of transferrables is legal to my understanding.

Knowing what I know about Bill Clinton Ruger, and seeing how Ruger won't sell 30 rd mags to the peasantry today, Ruger didn't hold them back for customer service.

They held them cuz Ruger thinks only da gubbermint should have FA.
Honoring the warranty now is simply a matter of legal necessity, not cuz they are swell fellers.

If I'm wrong, I do apologize. But that's my opinion, based on what I see and know to be true.

Ruger has no need to hold back for Government warranty claims.....they can make all the post ban receivers they want for military and law enforcement use.

Ruger is also not legally bound to honor any implied warranty to anyone other than the original owner. They honor an IMPLIED warranty to ANYONE that owns their product.

They held back PRE 86 (read civilian transferable) receivers to honor private citizen warranty claims. They would not have any reason to hold back any receivers if they were only interested in Government warranty claims. The Government does not have to abide by the pre and post ban laws we private civilians do.

Ruger held these receivers and rifles back so guys like you and me could ship them a cracked receiver twenty something years later and still get a factory replacement.

[garandman]

I see what youa re saying on the warranty issue, as it effects original owners vs. subsequent owners.

Still, based on other things I've seen Bill Ruger-Clinton do, I have my doubts Ruger saved the receivers out of foresight and out of the goodness of their hearts.

If they won't sell 30 round mags to civilians, I have my doubts they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The two just don't jive.

Again, I'd be happy to be wrong.

[piratesover40]

No honest man has a need for one, they should torch them.


You CAN'T be serious. If you are serious WTF are you doing on a forum like UZITALK? Besides only HONEST men should own them. :firingak

[MarkV]

You CAN'T be serious. If you are serious WTF are you doing on a forum like UZITALK? Besides only HONEST men should own them. :firingak


i doubt he is serious, i'd bet money he's just making a play on words bill ruger used in reference to high capicity magazines...

many are/were resentful when ruger came out as a proponent of restricting high capicity magazines. i'd just put ruger's comments in the trash where it belongs along with zumbo's anti black rifle comments.

[piratesover40]

You CAN'T be serious. If you are serious WTF are you doing on a forum like UZITALK? Besides only HONEST men should own them. :firingak




Thanks for clearing that up for me. Sorry if I was outta line.

[CIB]

Bill Ruger is a corpse mildewing in a hole somewhere. He is no longer relevant.
Ruger does not manufacture 30 round magazines anymore.
Now you can be happy! :m16s

[JasonAC556]

I see what youa re saying on the warranty issue, as it effects original owners vs. subsequent owners.

Still, based on other things I've seen Bill Ruger-Clinton do, I have my doubts Ruger saved the receivers out of foresight and out of the goodness of their hearts.

If they won't sell 30 round mags to civilians, I have my doubts they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The two just don't jive.

Again, I'd be happy to be wrong.

You are like a bulldog with a pork chop!!!:silly

What possible reason could Ruger have had for holding back PRE 86 (CIVILLIAN TRANSFERRABLE) receivers other than civillian warranty claims?

I guess we just disagree on their motives. I'm just glad that for WHATEVER reason they did it we can receive benefit from this policy.

[Vegas SMG]

I don't have any numbers and I doubt anyone here can provide any real numbers, but I think we'll all agree that Ruger probably didn't market their guns to civilians and the real reason for replacement isn't great customer service, it's liability resulting from a defective gun with a cracked receiver injuring someone.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but think about this in an objective manner. The focus of Ruger's sales of the full auto models were to law enforcement since it couldn't find a military buyer that wanted their rifle. Colt was no different. They didn't offer a single M16 on the civilian market and strongly discouraged dealers from selling to civilians.

I highly doubt Bill Ruger encouraged sales of full auto guns to hobbyist collectors like us. More likely they had a large supply of AC556 receivers and chose to hold on to them after the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 which banned further production of new machine guns for civilians.

Just as Colt didn't sell directly to civilians to appease the government which was it's largest customer, I suspect that Bill Ruger's personal views coupled with his desire not to alienate sales to law enforcement agencies precluded any sales to the civilian market place.

The overwhelming majority of AC556s in private hands today have come from prisons, highway patrols, state and local police agencies where they have been retired and traded for other weapons and I'll let you speculate on which ones.

Reasoning tells me that the defective receivers are being replaced today due to an abundant supply that existed on May 19, 1986. Ruger's is wise to replace a receiver they know to be out of spec., cracked, damaged, or otherwise unfit for it's intended purpose and may cause personal injury or death. Why? It's not based on great customer service or keen fore sight, it's based on returning a know defective gun to a person and dealing with litigation afterwards if the gun KABOOMS. That's smart business on their end to avoid being sued, but you'll perceive it as great customer service.

Any guess as to how many AC556s were ever made? How many post samples are sold on a yearly basis? Who buys them these days? Just asking.

[JasonAC556]

Well, since you put it in those terms, I have to admit it makes sense.

Again, whatever the reason they held them back, I'm glad we as civilians are able to benefit from this.

As to total numbers produced.....????? Post 86.....?????

There are still a few agencies that still have them in their arsenals (my county Sheriff for one). Most have made the switch to the "Ugly Black Rifle" for obvious reasons. I hope more make the switch, as this could put more transferable AC556's into circulation.:banana

Of course, I hope more agencies that have transferable M16's in their arsenals upgrade to M4's for the same reason.

More transferable machineguns of every flavor and variety is only a good thing in my opinion.:hyper

[CIB]

The only country that I know of that used the AC556 in any numbers, was the Bahamas. Wish I had saved the pics. :(

[Vegas SMG]

I agree Jason. There are still numbers of transferable Rugers held by police agencies around the country and you still see a group of them come up for sale now and then. It's a great thing for "us" that these guns have a high demand and a good trade in value as many LEO agencies with limited budgets and are forced to make due with smaller budgets. It's a win~win situation for all concerned!

There are smaller numbers of other guns trickling out of the system, but we still win. Some departments actually have MACs, Thompsons, Rieslings, and a smattering of other interesting guns including the M16s you mentioned. I personally know two Uzi Talk members who own guns that are marked and once belonged to the Clark County Sheriff's Department, (Las Vegas). One is a M1A Thompson and the other is a S&W 76.

Why did Ruger hold on to the transferable guns? Maybe, just maybe, they didn't completely understand where the transferable market would these guns place in terms of future value. Perhaps they felt they needed these pre-ban guns to replace the older transferable guns LEO owned. I doubt we'll ever know exactly why, but I suspect the end result of having an unknown quantity of replacement receivers 20+ years later was more accidental or driven by fear of litigation than their concern about taking care of civilian consumers who they didn't want to have these guns in the first place. Just my two cents and speculation.

I do seem to recall some Caribbean country's police force using the Ruger. Still, I don't think it was a country with a standing army.

Interesting topic and lots of room for speculation!

[TrippHammer]

When I was in the Bahamas I saw a military group w/ Enfeilds I think they must have been SMLE's. They where in a precession when Queen Victory's Boat was in town. They where guards, I imagine they where only for show, but I don't rember seeing machine guns. I do remeber seeing the police officers and they where whereing six shooters. Ac556 would be neat to see in a military application.

[garandman]

I highly doubt Bill Ruger encouraged sales of full auto guns to hobbyist collectors like us. More likely they had a large supply of AC556 receivers and chose to hold on to them after the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 which banned further production of new machine guns for civilians.

Thar's what I'm saying.



Just as Colt didn't sell directly to civilians to appease the government which was it's largest customer, I suspect that Bill Ruger's personal views coupled with his desire not to alienate sales to law enforcement agencies precluded any sales to the civilian market place.

That's what I'm saying.


Ruger's is wise to replace a receiver they know to be out of spec., cracked, damaged, or otherwise unfit for it's intended purpose and may cause personal injury or death. Why? It's not based on great customer service or keen fore sight, it's based on returning a know defective gun to a person and dealing with litigation afterwards if the gun KABOOMS. That's smart business on their end to avoid being sued, but you'll perceive it as great customer service.

.

That's what I'm saying.

And yes - I am a bull dog with a pork chop.

:jester

[galilgunner]

The first time I went to Nassau Bahamas about 7 years ago there were 2 uniformed guys standing at the port entrance with what appeared to be G3's. It could have been FAL's (I only glanced at the guys briefly) but I don't think so.

On the receiver question, It could have been that they merely held onto the transferable receivers they had on hand at the actual time the law passed so that no more transferable receivers would be put into circulation. They may have decided to only fill new LEO orders with post 86 nontransferable receivers but not destroy the older ones just in case they needed them for replacement. What ever the case I'm glad it is working out well for some people.