| Bill Ruger: A Man on a Mission - Page Three | |
Page Three
ST: If you were to address our readers as to why they should buy a Ruger gun, what would you say?
WBR: What we teach ourselves (Ruger employees) is safety, strength, and reliability. From there on in, there are certain characteristics in each model gun that the purchaser has to decide for himself what he likes and doesn’t like. I’ve always gone on the theory, you don’t have to have a lot of experience in terms of deciding what you like or don’t like. People will look at different model guns and see the differences.
But
one area the user can’t evaluate today is metallurgy. They should know
that after every pouring (in the investment casting process), as soon as it’s
cool enough to handle, we do an analysis. We know the physical boundaries of
the castings and know the standards we need to maintain and what we demand.
We conduct metal fatigue testing. We have types of checks all the way through
the proof testing of each and every gun.
ST: Fifty years. Your feelings. Have the years gone quickly?
WBR: Pretty much. No one can ever say you can’t control events in your lifetime. I can say I’ve been delighted with the outcome of every design project. The reason for that is simple: If we didn’t like a gun, we didn’t make it!
ST: A lot of gun designs didn’t make it?
WBR: A jillion of them really. Of course, what’s the definition of when a gun is a gun? A gun in your mind, on paper, or when you make a whole bunch of them?
Guns can be visualized on paper. It (the gun) doesn’t have to be steel. My motto for designing: If it works on paper, it will generally, though not always, work in steel. To a large extent that’s true.
ST: What do you think of some of your own gun designs like the Single-Six?
WBR: I always think of the Single-Six halfway with pleasure and halfway with amusement because it was so astounding and well received; I was really amazed. We thought it was something that might be looked at with a kind of a jaundiced eye, but instead, the world just took it right to its heart.
It’s really a gun that boosted the company. Initially it was more popular than the .22 pistol. It was a sensation when we brought it out.
How it all happened is quite interesting. Pete Kuhlhoff did a three-inch article in Argosy magazine about Ruger considering producing this gun. The next thing we knew we got a call from the post office in Southport (CT) and the person said you better come down and get your mail. We don’t know what’s going on there, but there’s a ton of mail here. We came back with bushel baskets full of mail requesting more information about this new single-action revolver.
ST: The Ruger Flattop.
WBR: That gun was inspired by an article that appeared in the American Rifleman by Elmer Keith on single-action improvements. That was in ’53. I had a drawing board set up in house, actually a converted barn. Worked long days at the board to complete the drawings. That was the start of the .357 Flattop. That was a huge success. It was as easy to make as the Single-Six, but we had to enlarge and strengthen it somewhat because it was a centerfire revolver.
Page One - Intro, Birth of the Company, First StepsPage Two - Thoughts on Colt & Browning, Competitors
Page Three - Why Buy Ruger, 50 Years, Failed Designs, Single-Six, Flattop
Page Four - Bearcat, No. 1, Red Label, Super Blackhawk, Redhawk, Old Army, Security-Six
Page Five - .44 Deerstalker, GP100, SP101, Super Redhawk, Mini-14, 77, 77 MK II, 77/22
Page Six - 10/22, Model 96, P-Series, Looking Ahead
This article was originally published in Shooting Times magazine in March, 1999.
