BREAKING: Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California?

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,809
Likes
2,864
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Another possibility with this is Ruger may have figured out there's a cost/benefit problem here. The fee is like $200 per model per year, IIRC. If each derivative is counted as a model, for a company like ruger that can probably turn into a 5 figure sum every year, plus whatever they have to pay the lawyer or whoever they have that takes care of all that shit. That means that Ruger in CA starts 50 grand in the hole or something every year. They probably make more than that obviously, but that's still a pretty big hit to take, when they can just abandon the handguns and sell the rifles and shotguns in CA which have considerably less regulatory burden, and likely greater sales.

-Mike
I'm sure that the total cost of this CA nonsense is something well over the $200/gun fee. Still, I find it hard to believe that this was a purely economic decision on Ruger's part.

Ruger annual sales are what now? Something approaching three quarters of a billion dollars at last check. A good chunk of that has got to be coming from Kalifornia sales. It's a big state after all... and not everyone out there is a screaming liberal moonbat.

And while you say that they will still have rifles, shotguns and (presumably) revolvers for sale out there... that has still got to be a lot of money lost. And what about the consumer "piss-off" factor? If folks can't buy semi-autos by Ruger's own decision... maybe they won't buy Ruger's rifles, shotguns or revolvers either?

No, something else is up with this. I'm not sure what, but it can't be just pure economics.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
Just a guess, but since it's only semi-auto handguns that are being pulled, Rugers decision probably has more to do with ballistic fingerprinting requirements (potential, real or imagined).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471

Microstamping technology now exists unencumbered by patents and is available for use by firearm manufacturers. In May 2013, the California Department of Justice certified that microstamping technology was ready for use within the state.8

http://smartgunlaws.org/microstamping-ballistic-identification-policy-summary-2

The current approved handgun roster (roughly 77 Ruger models by my count)...


http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,734
I understand that, Mike. What I can't get is why Ruger is becoming all Fuddy on us. Their MKIII pistols had all the bells and whistles installed, as far as safety devices goes.

My guess is someone looked at how much money they were spending on lawyers and compliance garbage. Either that or the person in legal they have is dumb and not really well versed in dealing with these issues. It does seem kinda stupid particularly in the MA circumstance, because the only competitor they really have here is S&W, on both the wheelgun front and the .22 pistol front.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
Maybe Fuddy is not a good choice of words but Ruger seems to be easily coerced into just giving in easily to whatever obstacles, real or imaginary, that may be placed in their way.

Frankly, if I had a business (I don't) that sold a product, I wouldn't sell it in Mass or CA due to their ridiculous restrictions that they place ON ME, let alone on the customers.

If Ruger is in fact doing this for purely economic reasons, they may still stop selling in Mass. CA has far more gun owners than Mass which means Ruger would make far more money there in terms of gross revenue.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
Just a guess, but since it's only semi-auto handguns that are being pulled, Rugers decision probably has more to do with ballistic fingerprinting requirements (potential, real or imagined).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471



http://smartgunlaws.org/microstamping-ballistic-identification-policy-summary-2

The current approved handgun roster (roughly 77 Ruger models by my count)...


http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

I totally forgot about this. CA now requires microstamping on ALL newly sold handguns correct? Making a gun having microstamping is a HUGE cost for one market, even with a market with 8 million gun owners. And because CA requires that all newly sold guns meet their ridiculous requirements yearly, I can see why Ruger dropped CA.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
8,611
Likes
1,657
Now that's just a dumb @ss comment to make. You know damn well not all liberals hate guns. I for one am married to one.

all liberals may not hate guns but all liberals vote for liberals which leads to liberals in office that hate guns

now if you are a liberal who doesn't vote for liberals, not so sure you're a liberal
 

murf4321

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
1,675
Likes
1,061
the microstamping is the dumbest $hit I've ever heard. Now some ass can hang out next to me at the range, take some of my spent brass, & plant it at a crime scene while picking up their's. Great plan!!! Go liberals!!!!
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
I totally forgot about this. CA now requires microstamping on ALL newly sold handguns correct? Making a gun having microstamping is a HUGE cost for one market, even with a market with 8 million gun owners. And because CA requires that all newly sold guns meet their ridiculous requirements yearly, I can see why Ruger dropped CA.

It could potentially be worse than that for them from a buisness perspective.

Ever since the Bill "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds" Ruger controversy and ensuing boycott, the company has slowly began rebuilding it's trust and 2nd amendment creds with gun owners.

To this day, there are still many gun owners who refuse to purchase or own Ruger products.

Even if they were willing to bear the cost and hassle of complying with any CA ballistic fingerprinting requirements, the calls for a national boycott, and loss of sales, would greatly outweigh what they would gain in CA.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,736
Likes
8,146
Location
Near Framingham
the microstamping is the dumbest $hit I've ever heard. Now some ass can hang out next to me at the range, take some of my spent brass, & plant it at a crime scene while picking up their's. Great plan!!! Go liberals!!!!

I suspect that microstamping can be easily defeated. You could spend a little time with one of these:

300px-Waterstones.jpg


Install a new firing pin:

tn_push_firing_pin.jpg


Or learn to love one of these:

162506_01_md.jpg
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
1,348
Likes
311
Location
Milford, Ma
all liberals may not hate guns but all liberals vote for liberals which leads to liberals in office that hate guns

now if you are a liberal who doesn't vote for liberals, not so sure you're a liberal
That too is a pretty wide sweeping generalization just like the one before. I guess I would have to see one's definition of a liberal before I can discuss further.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
8,611
Likes
1,657
That too is a pretty wide sweeping generalization just like the one before. I guess I would have to see one's definition of a liberal before I can discuss further.

true, I am operating under the NES standard definition which is card carrying democrat who puts all of their stock in perceived social and safety issues above all else

always exceptions to the rule but in general I hate liberals as well
 

mousegunfan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
2,824
Likes
1,588
Location
Cape
I believe the issue was the new micro stamping law as stated by some previous posters, Ruger decided not to comply, hence not renewing the yearly fee. The post says semi auto, but I saw a list on calguns that included revolvers. Does this micro-stamping include revolvers? I don't think other companies are going to micro stamp their guns either. So this may be more than just Ruger.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
I believe the issue was the new micro stamping law, Ruger decided not to comply, hence not renewing the yearly fee.

Now that I was remided of that, you will see all other manufacturers follow suit. The cost is just too great. And when you factor in what LoginName mentioned, the very real possibility of a boycott over said compliance, I now believe there will be no newly manufactured semi-auto handguns on the market in CA.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,983
Likes
3,535
Location
Leoburg/Fitchminster area
Ruger enjoys high profits and is going full bore. California is potentially a large market. Ruger is also expanding and opening a new factory. They plan apparently according to some sources, to introduce 10 new models in the near future once the factory is up and running.

Companies do things that they think will increase their profitability. My sensing is that the analysts at Ruger decided that it simply wasn't profitable to continue dealing with CA compliant models and the BS that goes along with them. I'm not so sure that CA sales for the products that they are dropping are worth it to them, or they would continue. It sounds like a business decision pure and simple and their marketing and sales strategy has reached a point where they don't see CA as a major market for the products they market and sell there.

This is not an exact parallel but the same situation with regard to Glock in Massachusetts. Oh, they could sell a bunch of them here, but they don't need to. They tried and it turned out to be a cluster and not worth the effort so they dropped the project.

$$$$ drive business decisions. They are in essence writing CA off.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,204
I believe the issue was the new micro stamping law as stated by some previous posters, Ruger decided not to comply, hence not renewing the yearly fee. The post says semi auto, but I saw a list on calguns that included revolvers. Does this micro-stamping include revolvers? I don't think other companies are going to micro stamp their guns either. So this may be more than just Ruger.

The list you saw was the Certification list, which does include revolvers, with the following exceptions...

Pursuant to California law, single-action revolvers with at least a five-cartridge capacity, a barrel length of not less than three inches, and an overall length of at least seven and one-half inches are exempt from testing requirements. All currently manufactured Ruger single-action revolvers satisfy these criteria and therefore are exempt from the California requirements. These revolvers may be purchased in California even though they do not appear on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

http://www.ruger.com/search/group/?cat=ca

Micro stamping (if that is indeed why Ruger decided to do what they did), does not include revolvers.

The Certification list http://certguns.doj.ca.gov is a bit of a mess to keep up with as all models expire on different dates.

As a matter of fact, the certification for several Ruger pistols expires tomorrow...


LC9-CF 03211 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014
LC9-LM 03206 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014
LC9-NRA 03209 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014
LC9-P 03205 / Alloy; polymer Pistol 3.12" 9mm 1/16/2014
BSR9C-10-CT 03329 / Alloy Steel Slide; Poly Frame Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014
KSR9C-10-CT 03328 / Stainless Steel Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014
KSR9C-NRA 03325 / Stainless Steel Pistol 3.5" 9mm 1/16/2014

Should be interesting to see if they're gone from the list in the next few days
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,983
Likes
3,535
Location
Leoburg/Fitchminster area
I highly doubt Ruger has very many LEO sales. LEO's seem to want SIGs and M&P's. I've never heard of any department using Ruger handguns.

You will find Rugers in smaller agencies especially where officers are required to purchase their own weapons. The Wisconsin State Police carried P89s for a while. Ruger Revolvers were purchased by a number or agencies before semi-autos took over, and were even on the NYPD purchase list back in the day (NYPD LEOs have to buy their own guns from the department).

Institutional sales have never been Ruger's strong suit, but you will find them out there.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
You will find Rugers in smaller agencies especially where officers are required to purchase their own weapons. The Wisconsin State Police carried P89s for a while. Ruger Revolvers were purchased by a number or agencies before semi-autos took over, and were even on the NYPD purchase list back in the day (NYPD LEOs have to buy their own guns from the department).

Institutional sales have never been Ruger's strong suit, but you will find them out there.

Interesting.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,533
Likes
23,691
Jesus. Will Massachusetts be next? [thinking]

A fundamental difference between the MA and CA roster (besides the fact that CA roster is not run in serials with an AG non-roster) is that the CA roster requires payment of a fee (I think it's $200) each year to keep a gun on the roster. Once a gun in MA is on the lab tested or target roster, it remains unless the EOPS removes it.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,734
Ruger enjoys high profits and is going full bore. California is potentially a large market. Ruger is also expanding and opening a new factory. They plan apparently according to some sources, to introduce 10 new models in the near future once the factory is up and running.

Companies do things that they think will increase their profitability. My sensing is that the analysts at Ruger decided that it simply wasn't profitable to continue dealing with CA compliant models and the BS that goes along with them. I'm not so sure that CA sales for the products that they are dropping are worth it to them, or they would continue. It sounds like a business decision pure and simple and their marketing and sales strategy has reached a point where they don't see CA as a major market for the products they market and sell there.

This is not an exact parallel but the same situation with regard to Glock in Massachusetts. Oh, they could sell a bunch of them here, but they don't need to. They tried and it turned out to be a cluster and not worth the effort so they dropped the project.

$$$$ drive business decisions. They are in essence writing CA off.

This.... Ruger is selling everything they make, pretty much, without much difficulty. Every dealer I talk to has Ruger products backordered into oblivion and beyond. Any of the semis they had destined for the CA market will easily be consumed by the rest of the channel.

Yes, CA is a big market... but it's a falling one, more than likely, particularly WRT semiautomatic handguns.

-Mike
 

CTpatriot

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
7,738
Likes
1,036
What needs to happen is for the companies that sell to LEO's in CA to do the same. Include LEO sales in with civilian sales, so leave the state completely. Also make it so that they will no longer service firearms from LEO's within said state. Then expand that to the other moonbat/fudd/nanny-states... Maybe if enough LEO's are denied just as civilians are, things will start to improve.

More likely than not, though, this will only impact the civilian market.
If this happens then its time to start a boycott. [laugh]
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,788
Likes
15,445
Location
NH
The cost of testing for MA and CA is what it is.

MA puts the gun on the EOPS List and it stays there forever (removal would mean used guns couldn't be transferred by MA Dealers). CA requires an annual "license fee" in order to remain on their list.


IIRC, that was due to mechanical or other design changes, and not merely an "oh shit, lets stop selling this" thing.

Either wrong or VERY BAD decision on Ruger's part . . . one that makes no sense in the world of manufacturing and inventory control! If you change a product and don't change the P/N (SKU), how do you know what you have in inventory? I can't imagine Ruger doing design changes without changing a P/N or SKU!


That was Ruger's decision, the state didn't force them do that. The models in question are still on the EOPS roster.

-Mike

Yes, they did request removal from the EOPS List and Glidden told me that he informed them that "this is not how we do things in MA" and refused to remove the guns from the EOPS List. So Ruger went around telling their distributors and dealers that they were no longer certified, creating havoc in MA. To put it bluntly, Ruger seems to be run by morons!


"Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster "

Ruger has over 60 semi autos? Are they including distributor exclusives and anything that comes with different colored grips?

IIRC, the way they have them listed, each variation is listed separately. Ruger is creating their own problems. I swear if they changed the color of the box they'd want a new listing (which means retesting or "equivalency letter" and waiting months for approval and publication of a new Roster)!
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
1,348
Likes
311
Location
Milford, Ma
If u put 10 liberals in a room, how many do u think would be anti's ? Come on now tell the truth !
I won't lie. I'm going to say 9 because I don't think it will be 10/10 every time. Plus you need to identify and encourage the outliers (they do exist), not alienate them. There is just too much stereotyping and generalizations on both sides of the fence. That was my only point.

Yeah, it's like MA residents not wanting to do a perfectly legal open carry barbecue.
[smile]
 
Top Bottom