Beretta going after Ruger

[Roadmaster02]

I own a 10-22 that was built in about 1980 and after thousands of rounds it just keeps on going . Now my Ruger American Ranch rifle 5.56 that I bought about 6 yrs ago has been sent back twice due to problems with the bolt. They got it right the last time and it is a great little truck gun.

Beretta would probably improve Ruger but I feel like Ruger should stay an American owned company. I am not a big fan of the worldwide conglomerates.

 

[4090Sharps]

Beretta currently own:

Holland and Holland
Chapuis
Tikka
Benelli
Sako
Franchi
Stoeger
Uberti

Is there an idea them controlling Ruger will be a net negative to the product?

Probably not the product, but sometimes when these takeovers happen the product lines get "streamlined" for profit.

This move would also bring Marlin under Beretta. I don't love the consolidation.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Beretta needs more US manufacturing to avoid tarriffs, US is large market for them...Ruger is a historically poorly ran company with manufacturing locations across the US...didn't take a rocket scientist to see this coming.

 

[FritzHlzr]

This move would also bring Marlin under Beretta. I don't love the consolidation.

My first concern with the "takeover" was Marlin, not sue how lever actions will be viewed by a global conglomerate. I don't have a lot of experience with Ruger but it don't seem like the qc could be worse. I have steered away from products because of some of the negativity.

 

[ODB]

Probably not the product, but sometimes when these takeovers happen the product lines get "streamlined" for profit.

This move would also bring Marlin under Beretta. I don't love the consolidation.

On the other hand, product lines also get unjustifiably expanded for the same grab for profit.

I’d rather have a smaller yet bulletproof line of products versus the next greatest thing(s) that are junk.

 

[timekiller13]

I’ve owned a boat load of Rugers.

Their semi-auto handguns are meh.

Their revolvers are bullet proof.

Their rifles are functional and work. Kind of like Mossberg shotguns. Ugly as sin and they rattle but they shoot.

 

[Cherokeeguide]

My near 50 year old Mark 1 is still fun to shoot, and shoots very well, my 40 year old 10-22 is still a shooter too

Judging Ruger quality on how it WAS with Mark 1 Target pistols and my 1981 10/22 deluxe is what led me to waste money on over 20 Ruger firearms that shouldn't have hit retail with the problems they came out of the box with. If the only Ruger firearms I ever shot were my dad's tack-driving (literally, I've literally driven tacks with it) and unfailingly reliable Mark 1 Target and my 10/22 that lasted 46 years of heavy use before the receiver cracked, I'd think that Sturm, Ruger, and Co were one of the highest quality firearms manufacturers in the world.

I have owned at lest 25 Ruger firearms. The only ones that were built right, right out of the box, were my 1981 10/22 Deluxe, a 1980 6" stainless Security Six that I bought new in 1986, a Ruger M77RL Ultralight in .250 Savage, a Ruger No.1 B in .300 Weatherby Magnum, and a No.1 Tropical in .375 Holland and Holland Magnum. The other 20 were raw, unfinished turds that should have never wound up in customer's hands.

 

[Cherokeeguide]

Their rifles are functional and work

Their Mini-14 wasn't very functional, if you expect one of the functions of a rifle to be hitting what one aims at, and it didn't work all that well as a rifle because of this.