Has Ruger Engaged in Questionable Business Practices?

[FEG]

This thread is actually a "reprint" of something that came up in a Ruger LCP review. Long story short, I made a comment to the effect that I considered some of Ruger's business practices questionable. (I am referring to the company, not any individual.)

Here is my thinking:

The AWB was a restriction on free trade targeting foreign guns. Foreign companies by and large don't make revolvers, for example. They do make a lot of weapons with natural capacities over 10, semi-auto rifles, and other products implicated by the ban. In constrast, Ruger made virtually no products implicated by the ban. The only motivations Ruger could have had were as follows: 1) Public safety, or 2) Harming competition. I'm assuming the latter.

Lobbying for or supporting an unconstitutional law to further business interests is pretty much my definition of a questionable business practice. I'm making a few assumptions, but I don't think I'm exactly in tin foil territory.

The P series is Kel-Tec's "flagship" product. At least, it is the most well known Kel-Tec product. The LCP is basically a P-3AT with Ruger on the side. According to several posters at THR, the LCP will even take some Kel-Tec magazines. Legally, Ruger was within their rights to do so if the P-3AT design is not patented. (In all likelihood, the P-3AT does not qualify for any patents, as it introduces no new technology or concept.) In other words, complaining about Ruger "ripping off" Kel-Tec is somewhat unfair.

However, the real aggravation to me is that Ruger is passing this off as their own design with no reference to Kel-Tec whatsoever. Publications like American Rifleman aren't calling them on it, likely due to Ruger's huge advertising budget. To me, it is a questionable business practice to pass of what is essentially a direct copy of another product as a new design.

Bottom Line: Compared to companies like Standard Oil, United Fruit, and Union Carbide, Ruger is a model of integrity. Still, I'm not happy with some of their antics.

 

[azredhawk44]

So what's the link between the LCP, the P3-AT and the AWB?

We've already got old Bill creating a magnetic field by the rate of spin in his grave due to:
1. The SR-9 and the accompanying 15 round magazines it has.
2. The NRA Edition Mini-14 with 20 round magazines available again.
3. The pocket-able LCP expressly designed (by Kel-Tec) as a discrete belly gun.

If the P3-AT design is unpatented and functional, why not copy it?

Would you rather see Ruger come out with a 1911 clone?

 

[FEG]

So what's the link between the LCP, the P3-AT and the AWB?

There is no link. I am referring to two discrete incidents:
1) Involvement in the AWB; and
2) Copying a competitor's product and presenting it as their own.

I see now that my cut-n-paste job made this unclear. (We were talking about both in the original thread.)

If the P3-AT design is unpatented and functional, why not copy it?

Legally, you can't stop them. Ethically, they should stop presenting the LCP as if it was 100% Ruger. It isn't.

Look at it this way. Let's say you are the P-3AT designer. Despite the fact that the design cannot be patented, it is still your design. You spent considerable time, toil, and energy over it. Are you saying you wouldn't want the credit and recognition for the design that Ruger is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise as the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Let's put it this way: If one definition of proscriptive ethics is treating people the way that you would want to be treated, then most people would have an ethical problem with the way Ruger has handled this.

Other manufacturers of clones, versioned copies, etc. are generally pretty open about it. In most cases, they want you to know the lineage of their version to promote sales. This is normative in the arms industry. Ruger has deviated from that norm.

I want to clarify something. I have no hidden agenda against Ruger or any other manufacturer. If people want to talk about some of Glock's or Colt's business practices, just for example, I will be more than happy to join their discussion. Ruger isn't the only arms company to engage in shennanigans lately.

 

[Unregistered]

OK, so what would you like Ruger to do ideally with respect to the LCP/P3AT?

Give Keltec a cut of the money?

Publicly say "gee thanks" to the designer of the P3AT?

 

[FEG]

Publicly say "gee thanks" to the designer of the P3AT?

How about some objective reporting from the gun rags? Then this wouldn't be laid at Ruger's lap. Something like: "While obviously based on the Kel-Tec P series, the Ruger version has..." One tiny dependent clause could generate a lot of good will amongst everyone involved. I blame the gun press as much as Ruger.

 

[Unregistered]

So the problem you have is really with gun magazines, isn't it?

In other words, Ruger isn't really saying anything about the gun... it is not a media outlet. Your problem is that gun writers are not giving the designer of the P3AT any credit, and you seem to be blaming that on Ruger?

 

[Kreyzhorse]

However, the real aggravation to me is that Ruger is passing this off as their own design with no reference to Kel-Tec whatsoever. Publications like American Rifleman aren't calling them on it, likely due to Ruger's huge advertising budget. To me, it is a questionable business practice to pass of what is essentially a direct copy of another product as a new design.

My Springfield TRP actually has 1911A-1 stamped into the slide but I don't see any nod towards Browning or Colt. Don't seem to recall S&W, Les Baer, Kimber, Taurus or any one thanking Colt either.

The design is in public domain, as are many other products, and I don't think that Ruger is being dishonest. It would be one thing if Kel-Tec made the guns and Ruger simply slapped their name on them but that isn't the case.

 

[WESHOOT2]

spade vs spade

First, after reading the current review of the new Ruger in American Handgunner, if there is something to 'say' about a gun, any gun, they will most certainly say it and print it, regardless of advertising.
Been true since 1976.
THAT said, I suggest that Springfield Armory offers something called the "XD"......

The 'thing' about the AWB has been repeatedly addressed; perhaps a better study of history, and Mr. Ruger's stated and published intent, would solve FEG's dilema with that episode.


No personal atrocities wished, but accuracy in thinking --and posting-- desirable LOL.

And one other thing: People sending private messages of disgruntlement are cowards? Public forum, public debate, politely, ay?
Find a way to do it publicly; if fear of banishment is stopping the public discourse perhaps the comment is inappropriate?

If one must: WESHOOT2@aol.com

Questions / comments / discussion invited. Always.

 

[FEG]

The 'thing' about the AWB has been repeatedly addressed; perhaps a better study of history, and Mr. Ruger's stated and published intent, would solve FEG's dilema with that episode.

I believe you have underestimated me. I am perfectly aware of Bill Ruger's comments.

Of course, Bill Ruger was a holy, blessed creature who never once told a lie in his life. Sarcasm aside, I don't believe him, period. If people aren't willing to at least acknowledge Ruger's obvious profit motive in supporting the AWB, then I don't know what to say.

This is not a slam on Ruger or Bill Ruger in particular. All of the American companies that supported the ban are guilty of protectionism or worse.

Here's my argument:

1) The AWB had a disproportionate impact on foreign arms manufacturers and foreign military surplus, if only due to the types of guns they tended to produce and import at that time;

2) A US arms manufacturer would have two (possibly more) reasons to support the AWB;
a) Public safety/public policy concerns, and/or
b) Competitive advantage for profit.

3) If the motive was purely to secure an unfair competitive advantage by using an unconstitutional law to erect barriers to trade, then that would be a questionable business practice.

The key becomes: Do you believe Bill Ruger's statements? If so, then the company allegedly supported the AWB for public policy reasons. The cynic in me believes that it was done in reaction to the wave of cheap military surplus cutting into Ruger sales in a big way.

I could be dead wrong or dead right. I don't see how we'll ever really know.

The second point concerning the LCP is related. Perhaps I really should be directing my criticisms at the American Rifleman. However, the notion that Ruger is totally innocent in that is ridiculous.

It is the responsibility of the gun press to be objective. At the same time, there is a general consensus that the gun press is anything but objective. Why? The general consensus goes on to conclude that most of these publications are driven by advertising revenue and censor themselves for the benefit of their advertisers.

Let's unpack that. Assuming the gun press is basically a shill for the arms manufacturers, how did this come to be? Presumably advertisers (arms manufacturers) threatened to pull advertisements from these publications at one time or another.

In other words, my real disgust should be directed at American Rifleman for poor journalism, but it is pretty clear to me that Ruger, along with virtually all advertisers, play a role in the problem. Otherwise, I would have to believe that the editors of American Rifleman live in abject terror of their overlords at Sturm & Ruger, so they no longer require direct supervision.

At any rate, my thinking behind all of this is that many gun owners seem to have no problem complaining about companies like GM, Enron, etc. When an arms manufacturer does something shady, it seems like there are always firearms owners who will defend their behavior.

As I mentioned, I could easily start similar threads about Colt, Glock, and S&W. If people would rather talk about them, that's cool with me.

 

[FEG]

In other words, Ruger isn't really saying anything about the gun... it is not a media outlet. Your problem is that gun writers are not giving the designer of the P3AT any credit, and you seem to be blaming that on Ruger?

To be honest, there is probably some of that going on in the subconscious. However, other manufacturers do often acknowledge the lineage of their clone guns in their advertisements, product literature, etc. This is not a universal practice, to be sure.

Appearances are important, and it looks like Ruger is keeping the heritage quiet. Why would a responsible journalist totally fail to mention the obvious relationship to the Kel-Tec? I can only think of two answers: 1) The journalist in question was not repsonsible, professional, or competent after all; or 2) Ruger asked them not to do so.

There have been a lot of people convicted on slimmer circumstantial evidence than that, anyways.

 

[Stiofan]

There are so many 1911 clones, and many decent bolt actions are Mauser clones, this is really a non issue to most. I understand for some reason it's a hot button for you, I just can't figure out why the outrage.

 

[FEG]

There are so many 1911 clones, and many decent bolt actions are Mauser clones, this is really a non issue to most. I understand for some reason it's a hot button for you, I just can't figure out why the outrage.

You guys haven't seen me outraged, not by a long shot.

Again, I could also name many other offenders:

Colt: Claiming to discontinue a model, only to reintroduce it when the used market goes crazy, indicating sufficient demand.

CZ: "Sure, we're going to have Dan Wesson produce revolvers, no problem..."

Glock: "Recalls" that somehow aren't "recalls."

A lot of gun companies do questionable things, but when someone calls them out, we must have some personal grudge...

Again, I don't see people jumping up to defend GM or Union Carbide this way.

 

[FEG]

There are so many 1911 clones, and many decent bolt actions are Mauser clones, this is really a non issue to most. I understand for some reason it's a hot button for you, I just can't figure out why the outrage.

John M. Browning is long dead. No one is picking his pocket, same with Mauser. Surely you see the difference?

 

[KyJim]

If Kel-Tec couldn't patent their pistol because there was nothing new, then they COPIED it from someone else. That's fair. It's done the world over in every business there is. If someone has a good product or idea which cannot be patented or trademarked, this is not a problem to me.

Bill Gates made his first big step in the software world with MS-DOS which he did not design. He bought it from someone else. He copied the idea of Windows (not the code) from Apple. This was all legitimate (I won't get into MS's illegal infringement on software patents and/or copyrights).

Colt used their patent on the first revolver to get started in the firearms business. When it expired, everybody started making copies while Samuel Colt was alive and kicking. That's just the way business is.

Finally, if Kel-tec had been able to make it's pistol reliable, then people wouldn't be flocking to buy Rugers.

 

[copenhagen]

Finally, if Kel-tec had been able to make it's pistol reliable, then people wouldn't be flocking to buy Rugers.

Ahh, the beauties of the free market . . . .

 

[Darren007]

John M. Browning is long dead. No one is picking his pocket, same with Mauser. Surely you see the difference?

Both are dead yes...But those companies still exist. But I dont see you argueing about why Ruger or Winchester rifles which are, for the most part, almost exact duplicates of the Mauser 98, and are never held to task for their lineage.

Like others, I fail to see just what exactly your arguement is about.

"The LCP kinda sorta looks like a Kel-Tec"....Ok whether it does or not, thats strictly an opinion. Both of those guns kinda look like a Colt pocket model from the early 1900s. So wheres Colts kudos???

Holding American Rifleman accoutable for not pointing out your perceived connection betweeen the two guns is...well, kind of lame. So what if they didnt. They were writing about the the LCP not the Kel-Tec.

Again, I just don't see what your so peeved about.


As for the AWB and Ruger. I think you are clearly in "tin-foil hat" territory. And have spent a little too much time thinkin about this and makeing up your own percieved ideas about Ruger. Sorry.

 

[Shiner Bock]

So Ruger has questionable business practices because of what gun rags do or don't print? I didn't realize anybody read gun rags, I thought they were just for the pictures.

 

[Fremmer]

However, the real aggravation to me is that Ruger is passing this off as their own design with no reference to Kel-Tec whatsoever. Publications like American Rifleman aren't calling them on it, likely due to Ruger's huge advertising budget. To me, it is a questionable business practice to pass of what is essentially a direct copy of another product as a new design.

For goodness sake. If you don't like the LCP, then don't buy one. If you don't like Ruger, then don't buy a Ruger. If you don't like gun rags, then don't buy them. If you like Kel-tec, then buy one. It's that simple, without all of the drama.

I guess I don't get it. Questionable business practices? C'mon. Buy the guns you like, don't buy the guns you dislike, and don't worry so much about what gun magazines say (or don't say).

 

[44 AMP]

A Highly developed sense of business ethics

Sadly usually results in a backrupt company today. Although we might wish otherwise, gunmakers exist to make money first, and guns second. Gun inventors/designers are often in for the guns more than the money, but the companies that make and sell guns are just that, companies that make and sell a product.

Gun makers generally hold a higher standard than many other industries, because (and only because) they have generally been able to make their profits while keep a (generally) high standard of ethics. When they can't make a profit, you see the high standard sink rapidly, in gunmakers, and in any other industry.

As to Bill Ruger supporting the AWB, take a little longer look in history. The major US gunmakers supported the GCA 68 (as it was presented to them), because it was a trade protection bill, and the US gun industry was sagging under a flood of cheap imports at the time. What actually became law included the protections from imports, and a host of other things (and disagreeable ones at that). Basically, Ruger was trying to save a company that he had built from scratch into one of the major US gunmakers in a few short decades. While it certainly gave the impression of "selling us out", if you look at it realistically, Ruger obligations were to Ruger, his company, his employees, and his customers, not the general gun buying public. He did what he though was in his best interests. Could he have done it differently? Certainly. Should he have done it differently? Probably, but hindsight is always 20/20.

As to the Ruger/Kel tec thing, I am not very familiar with the indivual guns you are discussing, but there are a few generalities that hold true. One, as already pointed out, is that if you cannot patent it, it is because it is not a new thing, and someone else has already registered the rights. Another thing is that guns made of similar materials for similar purposes tend to look very similar. The may have significant indernal differences, or only minor ones, but unless one is an exact copy (in all aspects) there is nothing yo can do, other than to avoid buying the product on principle.

Also, patents, trademarks and copyrights are not perpetual. Eventually they lapse, and the idea is considered to be in the public domain, and can be used by anyone without the legal responsibility to compensate the inventor (or their decendants). One could stretch a bit to say that all front locking bolt actions are Mauser deriviatives, but then you would also have to say that all heavier than air aircraft owe royalties to the Wright brothers. There are practical limits to owning eveything, including ideas. Once they leave the inventor's head, sole ownership and control begin to deteriorate.

So, Ruger's questionable business practices include trying to protect their business from damage due to arbitrary legislation and appearing to copy (or actually copying?) an unpatented pistol design? Since this doesn't even remotely rise to the level of physical injury, I'm not going to loose sleep over it.

 

[johnbt]

Let's see...

...yep, it's a new Ruger.

What's questionable about this? It's true.

A lot of Taurus' revolvers look like S&Ws and a lot of 1911s look like Colts. Heck, I can't even tell a lot of car models apart from a block away anymore.

Mr. Ruger, RIP. And thanks.

John