Ruger Can’t Meet Demand, Suspends Acceptance of New Orders

Ruger has announced that demand for firearms is far exceeding their ability to manufacture them, so they are suspending acceptance of new ordered from distributors. From the press release …

SOUTHPORT, CT –Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR), announced today that for the first quarter 2012, the Company has received orders for more than one million units. Therefore, the Company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders.

Chief Executive Officer Michael O. Fifer made the following comments:

• The Company’s Retailer Programs that were offered from January 1, 2012 through February 29, 2012 were very successful and generated significant orders from retailers to independent wholesale distributors for Ruger firearms.

• Year-to-date, the independent wholesale distributors placed orders with the Company for more than one million Ruger firearms.

• Despite the Company’s continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the Company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders.

• The Company expects to resume the normal acceptance of orders by the end of May 2012.

The Company will announce its results and file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2012 on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, after the close of the stock market.

When I first started blogging, back in 2007, I was very critical of Ruger. Since then CEO Michael O. Fifer has been successfully shaking off what some would call the toxic legacy of Bill Ruger and embracing the demands of 21st century consumers in American, obviously with great success. Bill Ruger was without a doubt a genius, but in his latter years he instilled a culture in the company that resisted modern weapon trends like compact carry guns and tactical rifles. In the minds of many shooters, William Batterman Ruger, Sr. will be remember best for saying “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun.”, not for his 10/22, Mini-14, Ruger No. 1 or pistol designs. Michael O. Fifer’s Ruger will sell you whatever is legal and will make a profit!

As you would expect, the market responded positively to this news.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Jack Luz

    Whoever wrote this article, needs to brush up on his/her grammer. The title of the article should read “Ruger cannot keep up with demand, suspends future orders.”

    • Brian in Seattle

      You should check yourself before advising others. “Grammar” not “Grammer”.
      Otherwise, you’re right.

    • BluegrassGeek

      What? It’s a headline. They’re typically shortened and do not adhere to proper grammar.

      That said, the headline is a touch awkward, but still grammatically correct. “can’t” is the abbreviation for “cannot.” “Meet(ing) demand” is a common business phrase. And they didn’t “suspend future orders,” they’re simply not accepting NEW orders. Your wording implies they’re never taking orders again.

      tl;dr You’re wrong. ಠ_ಠ

  • Michael

    Rugers of old were great guns, but complicated to Strip.
    The seems to have rushed their new products to market, too many recalls.
    I think the best Ruger to buy would have been stock, not the guns. I own 7of the guns

    • Komrad

      I disagree. Ruger has had a couple recalls, but who hasn’t.

      Also, stripping Ruger guns isn’t that hard.
      I own a 22/45 (supposedly even more difficult to strip than a mk III) and it does take more work than my CZ or Buckmark, but I can just about do it blindfolded now.

    • The Other Dave

      The first time I disassembled my Mark III I wound up taking it to the gun store and having them help me put it back together. Major fail. No gun should require a hammer to disassemble.

      With that said, I’ve put about ten thousand rounds through it without giving it a full cleaning other than the action and the bore and can still plink clays at 50 yards easy. I just about love that little sucker.

      • W

        I found the mk III to be easy to disassemble, though it can be a little bit tricky if youre not used to it.

        The worst gun i have disassembled was a Colt Woodsman. to this day, that stupid 22 pistol haunts me.

  • Crawford Montizano

    “I am happy to tolerate a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but I’m not going to tolerate nastiness, rudeness, trolling, vitriol, or excessive snarkiness toward the author(s) or other commenters.”

    But its OK to denigrate a dead man, a man who designed, built and sold well engineered firearms. Who employed hundreds of people. Who provided weapons that defend people everyday, and can be used to put food on their tables.

    He had certain views, and he owned the company and could sell what he liked or didnt like. Its America – all views welcome.

    This is the only post i have ever read on this blog that I have been disappointed with.

    • Brian in Seattle

      I don’t see what you’re seeing. That was mild criticism at best. Denigrate? That may be overstating it some.

    • Nadnerbus

      Mr. Ruger was a useful idiot to gun banners. The article was far more fair to him than I would be. I own a mini 14 and really like it. But until recently when the company changed their views, I refused to buy any more of their products. As recently as 2004 when the federal assault weapon ban sunset, Ruger Co. refused to sell their 20 mini round mags to the public, despite it being lawful to do so (not that I can get them in California anyway).

      The man may have been a wonderful person, great family man, father, whatever. But his stance on gun laws was deeply flawed at best.

    • Dave

      Bill Ruger may have made a few good designs and employed a few hundred, but he stabbed millions of us in the back with his testimony to congress. That was pretty mild compared to some things I’ve seen written about Bill the Uber-Fudd. Dead or not, he deserves the denigration for his betrayal.

    • Unbound

      Compared to Glock, Mr Ruger is a hero.

      As far as Ruger, he expressed his opinions, you may disagree, but they were his to make. He stood by his principles, no matter what you thought of them.

      By many people’s standards, if you own a Glock, you are anti-American.

      Gaston Glock. The guy practices shady business practices (like setting up shell companies to avoid paying taxes), treats his employees like dirt, pays for hookers not only for himself but for potential customers to entice them to buy the product, has nothing but contempt for Americans even though the American market has made him billions over the years (he refers to Americans as “idiots” and “morons” who don’t know how to handle guns responsibly), and he’s a fan of Jorg Haider, the neo-fascist Austrian politician–in spite of the fact that, it was the socialist government that insisted on an Austrian gunmaker to fill the new contract for the army even though the contract was originally slated to go to Beretta. If it weren’t for this insistence, the contract would have gone to Beretta and Glock would still be making curtain rods and knives.
      Read “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun” by Paul Barrett, and see if you will ever look at a Glock with anything but contempt for the company.

      • Unbound

        BTW, I forgot to include an attribution in the above reply.
        Text copied almost verbatim from here:
        http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12172
        Thanks to “Van” for his original thoughts.

      • W

        I read “Glock” and you seem to have interpreted things differently than me. Perhaps this is because I offer a different perspective as a entrepreneur.

        Glock had a dream, and worked his ass off to make his dream come true: to submit a working pistol for the Austrian military, even if it required sunup to sundown work for two years seven days a week. People that want to succeed and make dreams come true make sacrifices.

        As far as “corruption” goes, if you think Glock is corrupt, then you should do some homework on the good ol’ american defense industry. Or ITT shipping night vision illegally to china. or the Stryker debacle. or what was previously known as Blackwater, PMCs operating in the United States. The Iran-Contra affair. the list goes on and on. It doesn’t excuse Glocks otherwise strange behavior, though these are public stock trading companies eclipsing Glock’s privately owned company in corruption. Fascinating.

        You want to talk about the demerits of glock, you must have missed the chapter about Smith and Wesson, whose engineers were ordered to come up with their version of the Glock, even if they have to “copy the mother f–ker” (to quote the book).

        Yeah, I guess larry vickers is anti-american (ROTFLMFAO) since he now shoots a Glock. Or US “special” units using the Glock 22. or 65 % of law enforcement who switched because no american company would f–king change with the times and smith and wesson was stuck in the 19th century selling everybody revolvers. Austrian or not, my damn Glocks work. Come up with a better SHTF gun and ill buy your lunch.

        Glock responded to a market need and changing trends in law enforcement. Due to the laziness and apathy of american gun companies, long too fattened by secure law enforcement and military contracts, they largely failed to innovate.

      • jdun1911

        Bill Ruger supported the Anti-Assault Weapon ban. He was one of the major people that lead to its passing. He used politics to limit our rights so he could have more coins in his pocket. He is no friend to gun owner.

    • Slim934

      In American all views are welcome. This is totally true.

      Which is why people have the right to question the extremely poor judgement and possibly the motives of people who actively propound stupid reasoning.

      Bill Ruger deserves every bad thing said about him in his stance on modern firearms. He had the right to hold whatever stance he wanted, but similarly everyone else had the right to say he was a moron and a traitor to the gun owning public for helping our masters in washington dictate what they are allowed to have. He undeniably did this, regardless of his creation of many fantastic firearm designs.

    • The Other Dave

      I didn’t think the criticism was that bad. I do feel the new CEO is taking Ruger to better levels. But then again, Ruger has always in my mind been the traditional American company. During Bill Ruger’s day that was what made Ruger great. Times changed in the 90’s and he was unwilling to keep up, either heuristically or just based on his principles. The leadership change is what the company needed.

      Yet oddly, despite the release of the SR-9, Ruger really has retained it’s core principles. It still makes what one could consider traditional guns and their products are great.

    • Matt G.

      Successful troll Is successful.

  • Mike Knox

    Just when I thought America can’t run out of guns..

  • Komrad

    Not really surprised. It may have something to do with the election. Even though it is unlikely that whoever is elected will institute any major unfriendly laws, people still worry.

    Hopefully, it isn’t that and this is just a trend stemming from increased gun ownership among traditionally non-gun owning groups (women, gays, liberals, college students, etc).

  • John Baker

    They promoted their new models extremely well this year and the press for them has been great. I’m not at all surprised to see this. I think they really just made smart design choices in filling niches that people wanted. I bet the Sr22 has been doing particularly well. I love mine.

  • Brice

    I won’t buy a Ruger SD pistol until they quite putting magazine disconnects in their guns. I managed to strip one out of my 22/45, but I’ll never have a magazine disconnect in a carry gun.

    Personal preference.

    • PT

      While I agree with you that the disconnect sucks, I believe the reason they include it so they can sell in AWB states which have goofy requirements on what pistols can be sold there.

      • Steve

        PT is correct. California requirement.

  • ankle

    But this just can’t be! Josh Horwitz told me that gun ownership was falling precipitously! </smirk>

  • Raoul O’Shaughnessy

    Bill Ruger ..ahem…’no longer being with the company’….was the best thing to happen to Ruger (and its stockholders) in a very long time.

  • Lance

    This whole case over buying guns and ammo at exorbitant prices is so silly. The whole election talk is a way for scoundrel gun sellers to rip off people buy paying hundreds of dollars more than what the weapon is worth. Ammo is worse.I glad Ruger and others are doing so well they cancelled most new orders but gun owners are hurting themselves by making it too expensive to buy anything.

    • W

      dude, its a simple law of economics: supply and demand.

      The more demand there is for a item, and the smaller the supply, the higher it is priced. All commodities are this way.

      As for gun owners “hurting themselves”, actually no they are not. They are pouring money into the private firearms industry and that is a huge economy by itself. If gun owners stop buying guns and ammo to make the prices go down, it will harm the companies and have no effect on prices. The prices are dictated by cost of production, marketing, overhead costs (that is a huge one), and generalized market value. Because overhead costs are increasing, inflation increasing, and cost of materials increasing, expect firearms and ammunition’s prices to remain high or perhaps increase.
      Artificially strongarming (manipulating) a economy to manipulate prices has never been successful historically.

      Dont fret though, with the US withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, hopefully the price of ammunition will alleviate prices.

  • JMD

    This just means there are a lot of people who don’t realize Marlin’s 795 is better than Ruger’s 10/22.

  • Charlie

    As I may disagree with Mr. Ruger’s views toward the end of his life, he did create a company that produced quality products which is still alive and well. That is his contribution to gun owners. I am very happy with my LCP, GP-100’s and 10/22’s because of their quality not the politics of the deceased owner. A greater betrayal would be to produce unreliable firearms, even at bargain prices.

    • FreeVoiceOfAus

      Umm you do realize his politics were to restrict what guns you could own, it’s not some unrelated thing like a stance on gay marriage or Iraq war or something that has little to no bearing on making guns.

      As for quality, despite making good quality, occasionally innovative and generally affordable firearms his politics expressed a desire not to have to do that because it was about having the state eliminate the competition as opposed to just making better guns to beat them. If your guns are the superior product then you shouldn’t need the state to protect you from inferior products.

      • jacob

        Sounds like Ruger played the system in their own self interest. That’s just good business.

        Gun onwership is way up. I used to walk on empty ranges 15 years ago. Today it could be a 3 hour wait.

        I would never buy a gun because of politics or rumors. That’s just getting hussled. Most of the time it’s just advertising. It’s like hollywood, good publicity or bad publicity it’s all the same, either way you make money.

      • jdun1911

        Bill Ruger was so anti-gun that he was cited by Bill Clinton when he passed the Anti-Assault Weapon Ban. Bill Ruger could not change with the time and taste of his customers. He did was to limit our gun rights so he could stay in business.

    • FreeVoiceOfAus

      Ah yeah the whole increased recognition of 2a was against Rugers will. He didn’t want didn’t want high cap mags or small concealed weapons. This is why I actually like a lot of the current Ruger products because they fly in the fact of that philosophy, so yeah Bill Ruger is almost in the same camp as Fienstein and all them when it comes to the current trend, it’s happening but they don’t like

      Regardless though the the point was that Charlie argued that Ruger was good because they produce superior guns which was the paramount issue in his mind above all else and yet Bill was indicating a desire not to have to do that by eliminating competition as opposed to making better guns, which Ruger had being doing quite well before that, the Standard didn’t succeed because Bill somehow got the Colt Woodsman banned, it just succeeded on it’s own merits. So if you’re arguing that quality is the most important thing then he should have a problem with Ruger trying to eliminate their competition through the government because it removes the incentive to make better firearms which is the most important thing in his mind.

    • Bob Z Moose

      I have to agree. It’s been said before, but I think it bares repeating: Ruger did what he thought to be in the best interest of the company. Anyone notice that the Mini-14 and Mini-30 weren’t on the named list in the Crime Bill? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103bcNoKb:e644150: They both could have easily been. That would have hurt the company. Will this satisfy the people that think of him as a traitor? No. I just remember him as a man who made brilliant guns and made them affordable. Just my 2 cents.

  • John Doe

    My old man must be really happy after buying a whole bunch of Ruger stock back in ’06.

  • jdun1911

    All those people that don’t like the negative remarks on Bill Ruger. Ruger was very lucky when he made his deal with the Devil in 1994. The internet was in its infancy and not much people paid attention to it.

    Almost 6 years later S&W made a deal with the Devil and it bankrupted them. Forced the owner to sell S&W and high tail it out of Dodge. Seven years after S&W Jim Zumbo made a fatal career mistake by supporting a ban on AR15. If Bill Ruger today did what he did in 1994, his company will burn to the ground.

    In the age of internet the gun community will not allow this kind of crap to go unpunished.

  • John Doe

    While we all agree that the late Mr. Ruger was definitely not a gun owner’s friend, we can’t deny that Ruger does put out some great products.

    Firearms, not Politics.

  • Anonymous123

    Since when are gun companies selling out? Has this ever happen before?
    What’s going on?
    I’m debating a ruger vs the rest?
    What are the pros and cons?

    Thanks for your input

  • 908Patriot

    Ruger makes a fine firearm. I have three, an early JP100 in .357, an early Mini 14 in .223 and a wonderful 10/22. I enjoy each one immensely.