h/t Commander Zero
Courtesy of CZ's excellent blog, we learn Ruger has noticed an obvious gap in their product line, and unfortunately, in typical Ruger fashion, has once again rogered their pet dog. This is so common thereabouts, the ASPCA puts them out as "information only" bulletins.
We don't reflexively hate Ruger, unlike the way HK hates us. We have a number of products made when they - accidentally or on purpose, we're not sure - stopped thinking with their heads up their asses, and made a fine weapon. When they get it right, they get things very right.
This is not one of those times.
Cdr. Salamander (IIRC) dubbed the Navy's LCS "Little Crappy Ships". In that spirit, we present to you, Ruger's Little Crappy Carbine, in, as CZ drolly put it, .45 AARP.
Shaking my head over this...thing. First thought: "And Ruger steps on their junk again." But I repeat myself.
Ruger having the wit to make this on their PC Carbine platform would've been just fine. They excelled on that one. As I noted at the time. More than once. But in the immortal words of Captain Rex Kramer, "That's just what they'd be expecting us to do."
The only thing this left-handed attempt is better than, is nothing at all. Allegedly.
And I've still got my vintage Marlin .45 Camp Carbine, thankyouverymuch.
Probably still would have wanted to get one of these (assuming such might ever be possible here in Califrutopia) but which is highly unlikely given that by not making this on the PC Carbine platform, just looking at the picture, this thing already checks three or four boxes (folding stock, protruding pistol grip, >10 rd mag cap, muzzle brake/flash hider...wonderful! Why not just cut to the chase, and make it full auto, with grenade launcher, flamethrower, and a permanently attached suppressor built in?!?) any two of which make it it a Califrutopian "assault rifle", meaning the @$$holes in Sacramento will want any version legal for sale here to require depot-level disassembly to reload, negating the entire point of making one in the first place.
I'm sure they'll make a California-compliant version in a couple of years that's a single-shot bolt action, or some such stupidity.
If they'd built it as a PC .45 Carbine (or, wonder of wonders, simply product-improved the Marlin Camp Carbine they now own the rights to), as any foole could have told them to do, it could have gone on the shelves unscathed tomorrow.
's okay though, it's not like we're only 10% of the entire firearms market in the country or anything.
I'm surprised they didn't invent a proprietary magazine for it too, that sells for $97@ for extras. How they resisted that bit of bog-standard Ruger idiocy is a mystery for the ages.
I can hardly wait until they get around to fornicating up a Marlin lever-action in .45LC. In 10 or 20 years, at their current pace. They'll probably make it require a proprietary tube for feeding, and hold 4 rounds. Or else belt-fed, with a bipod. That way, they can piss off cowboy action shooters and Marlin lever-action fans in one fell swoop.
I know Bill is dead, but his block-headed stupidity and market tone-deafness lives on at the company he built, and seems to be dug in there like herpes. Every once in a great while they claw their way free, but then the weight of decades of "We've always done it this way" practice drags them right back to 1980 all over again.
Hoping Ruger won't screw the pooch every chance they get is like rooting for the Cubs, or voting for Republicans and expecting to get smaller government.
Thanks for living up to all my expectations, Ruger: never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I fart in their general direction.
11 comments:
So reading this, your complaint is that Ruger didn't neuter their new carbine for the nanny statists in charge of CA? So they should screw 90% of the market that have the sense to live in America for the 10% in the Soviet Socialist State of California?
Of course, Ruger could have resurrected the .44 Mag Carbine, the one that looked like the 10-22.
Only 5 shots in the rotary mag, but lots of aftermarket stuff for the 10-22. This could have been made well under 6 pounds, and with a threaded muzzle and a folding stock.
John in Indy
@Chuck,
Thanks for trying to put the most ass-tastic take on what I said, and adding everything I never said just for frosting on that turd. Maybe there's something in the water east of the Sierras; IDK. Evidently English isn't working, but I'll try again.
My complaint is that they could have made the exact same carbine they already made in 9mm, and captured 100% of the market share nationwide without breaking a sweat nor "neutering" any-damn-thing, instead of making something that looks godawful, and automatically loses 10% of market share out of the gate, in an industry where making a 2% profit on the gun is considered a huge success.
I already own a PC 9, which they didn't have to "neuter" in any way to be CA-compliant, and it's one of the best things they've done in years. But we're talking about Ruger, and they're spring-loaded to the fuckhead position 9 times out of 10.
I didn't get an MBA, but I'm just spitballing that when you sell a product, it's generally best not to tell 10% of your market to go fuck themselves as the opener. It's also generally considered a good idea for most businesses if they sell more items, rather than less. I seem to recall it has something to do with making a bigger profit. Call Thomas Sowell, or even Harvard and Wharton, in case I've gotten this wrong.
If economics isn't someone's strong suit, a job awaits at Ruger product development.
You might have noted I don't give Ronnie Barrett any shit for making a product that can't be sold here, because that's not his fault. In fact, just the opposite, because he's literally told the CA PTB that if ordinary folks can't have any of his stuff, neither can the po-po here. How refreshing.
Ruger, OTOH, could have made an item sellable anywhere, but instead decided to make something that looks like a refugee from the 1970s, which cannot be sold here, when they didn't have to be fucktards about that. But, again, Ruger being Ruger.
So no gun company should make anything that is different than what they already make if the communists in CA won't allow it to be sold there? Suck it up or move the America.
No, Chuck,
Spring-loaded to stupid is not a rare thing, apparently.
No gun company should go out of their way to shit on 10% of their market share when they don't have to. They already have a product perfectly-suited for .45, with no restrictions anywhere in the country AFAIK.
That obvious economic point keeps going over your head.
Maybe you should stand up, and see if it smacks through your forehead and penetrates into your brain.
Companies are supposed to make products to sell. I'm pretty sure this is Econ 101-level stuff, which neither you nor Ruger seem to grasp.
You want to send a message? Call Western Union.
And in your case, probably apply to work at Ruger.
You seem to have exactly the mindset they favor, and an inability to see beyond the end of your own nose.
I see the point and also agree that that is an ugly POS. I just disagree with your argument that that CA should have a veto on what weapons are made available because they are "10%" of the market. If a gun design doesn't meet the standards to allow sales in CA, then CA is NOT 10% of the market. By definition, they are 0.000% of the market. I understand econ 101 just fine 90% is greater than 0%. A .45 version of their 9mm carbine may be a great idea but don't preface that argument with the idea CA compliance should be a national veto on all gun designs going forward.
Chuck,
Please point to where I said Califrutopia (the name should be a clue) "should have a veto on what weapons are made available". I'll wait while you go back and don't find that, anywhere.
Ruger had this in the bag. They proved it with the PC 9. Mine is fantastic. I linked to both reviews of it. So all they had to do was make a .45ACP version, and slam dunk it. In all 50 states.
Or even just improve on the Marlin Camp .45, which design and trademark they own lock, stock, and barrel.
But, Ruger. So they fucked it up by the numbers, and did neither of those obvious answers.
And CA is always going to be 10% of the gun market. 10M+ gun owners. 4.2M of whom answer "do you own a gun?" surveys, and another 6-10M who don't.
Even for ARs, FFS.
Just not suppressors or machineguns.
So if Ruger wants to make a machine gun, I'm not going to get on them because it isn't CA-compliant.
But when they've already made a pistol-caliber carbine that's legal in 50 states, but stupidly elected not to make it in one of the two most popular calibers in the nation, if not recorded history, and then re-visit that stupid choice, but decide to make it impossible to purchase in several states, they deserve all the shit I can fling.
They had 4 years of lead time not to fuck this up, and they still stomped all over their dicks. It used to be that was Remington's gig. Remington's not around any more. Ruger seems like they want to test the waters on that plan too.
So please, stop reading things into what I wrote that simply aren't there.
I'm not asking for CA to decide what guns are made.
I'm just asking Ruger not to be jackhole fucktards.
It turns out that of the two, asking for CA to decide what guns should be made is the more reasonable and likely request.
How are they 10% of the market for guns they can't buy?
Saying Ruger is stupid for making a pistol caliber carbine with cosmetic features that make it illegal to sell in CA is the same as saying CA has a veto over what guns should be made.
I will say again, I agree they should make the PC9 in .45 but why does that preclude them from making any other pistol caliber carbines or make them creating something new "fucking it up by the numbers"?
1) Because of the metric shit-tons of guns they can and do buy here. This isn't a difficult concept. Ruger has ensured that their new Little Crappy Carbine will never be any of those sales.
2) No, it isn't. Words mean things, and you don't get to substitute what you want for the actual value of the ones already written. It's saying Ruger is run by jackasses who can't do basic economic math. Their shareholders should have a chat with them about that. And their customers - or former customers - undoubtedly will. Ask Disney, Bud Light, and Sports Illustrated how those discussions go.
And BTW, the word for "cosmetic features" hereabouts is spelled F-E-L-O-N-Y. Say it with me. It means no guns for life, and pound-you-in-the-@$$ prison time. Not so cutesy put like that, is it?
3) It doesn't preclude them from doing anything. But gun makers only have the capacity, in every way, to introduce a few new items each year. So picking this abortion just underlines that they're too stupid to nail down additional sales for near zero effort on either of two proven designs, while instead dumping time, effort, and engineering hours into an ugly p.o.s., and deliberately alienating 10% of their potential customers.
QED: Own goal.
That's "fucking it up by the numbers".
Also known as being a gun company, and especially Ruger, more often than not.
More's the pity.
And if (or when) this thing lands with a notable "Thud" on the market, I'll cheerfully bring up the fact that I told you so.
Back when the PC9 first came out, I poked around in the guts and (if I remember correctly) found that the bolt face and weight were removable. At the time I declared it easily convertible to other calibers. Since then, however, I have done more tinkering with blowback carbines. The AR pattern 45 ACP I recently completed needs *a lot* of weight and spring in the system to keep the bolt closed long enough to avoid blowing cases. It has 6 oz pinned in the bolt, a 308 carbine spring and a 13(!!) oz buffer. I’m not sure the PC platform has the real estate to accommodate similar.
I’m reasonably sure you were somehow spying on my text exchange with my best friend in the whole wide world wherein we talked about almost exactly the points you raised about the LC Carbine, PC Carbine and Marlin Camp Carbine. I would take an updated Marlin Camp Carbine in .45 (1911 mags or Glock mags…or both) or a PC Carbine in .45. The LC Carbine looks a bit odd for my taste, and the reciprocating mass in the recoil assembly is huge (but not as huge as the hunk of metal in my Winchester 1905…damn thing is literally the size of the entire forend of the rifle). At 7 pounds, the LCC would make a fair boat anchor or not a terrible sledgehammer should ammo get scarce. That said, I may still get one due to a lack of other viable options under the 1.5 kilobuck CMMG Banshee line.
Post a Comment