Lee, ....how'd ya know?

I guess Rugers legacy will always be his companies ability to innovate. The MarkI pistol has gone thru many design changes...but is with us today. Same for the Single-Six. And the Blackhawks, the No.1's, The model 77's, and many more. He created a line of classic guns that the average working man could afford. Some of his shotguns are just plain beautiful. He may have tweaked guns...but he really is responsible for saving the Single Action market. His Ruger Old Army is another great example. Ruger set out to build the best cap and ball revolver ever made ~ and succeeded....no small accomplishment. And built for niche market, not meant to be profit center for the company.

I would say that Bill's accomplishment was to re-engineer the Gun Making environment and bring modern manufacturing processes forward. Investment casting alone, would mark a major accomplishment.


giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

That I know of, John Browning never advocated unconstitutional gun controls, nor did he ever pander to those who did.

And none of this would have happened without Mr Sturm.


Ken

This from a guy who's been so vocal an opponent of MIM in Smith & Wesson?

No question about it, John M. Browning. Bill Ruger was not even in the same league so to try to compare the two is stupid. The only thing that gives Ruger any notoriaty was his use of investment casting which lessened the labor involved in gun making and one would assume the cost. But looking at the prices for Ruger firearms it appears they have chosen to use these savings to pump up their profit as their products really offer no savings to the consumer over their competitors products.

Never have come across a Ruger that I had to have. Of the ones that I have purchased I found them all to be somewhat lacking. They were all disposed of at the earliest opportunity.

My memory is a bit foggy...was Ruger involved in any way with the AWB and the 10 rd mag limit? Just asking.......chill....

Edited: Uhh, never mind, I found out all I need to know about Ruger.

__________________
Sure you did

Mr. Browning was clearly one of the great innovative geniuses of the last couple of centuries.
Bill Ruger was a genius in not only seeing a need, but making it happen.

JM Browning was in a class of men that included George Westinghouse, Nikola Tesla, T.Edison, Parsons, and a few others. All giants upon who's shoulders many others stood, including Bill Ruger. Amazing what genius were among us at the end of the 19th century. Musta been something in that water. -S2

Bill Ruger never found a firearms design that he couldn't copy.

He ticked me off with his comments on magazines holding over ten rounds.

Yes...he advanced the process of investment casting for the firearms industry, allowing his company to produce arms more cost-effectively.

Bill Ruger may have been "more successful" than Browning financially, but as a firearms designer, he couldn't tie Browning's shoelaces.

Just my opinion.

__________________
'Merica!

In my mind there is no question, John Browning . . . period. JMHO

__________________
1st Signal Brigade, RVN '70

I often wonder where the gun industry would be if a Giant like Bill Ruger didn't come along after WWII. Dang guys, he started out in little more space then a 3 car garage and built an empire. He pushed the limits and brought a struggling gun industry back to life. The government had taken control of so much wartime production that the early years after WWII are of transitioning back into the civilian market.

I think if you look at this long enough, you have to realize that we the gun enthusiasts of the past 60 years actually owe William Ruger a great deal of thanks...

Browning was an inventive genius, a true giant. Ruger was an innovative genius who modernized the gun industry.

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Well you got to admit that Browning wins the "middle name" contest
I mean "Batterman" ?????? Come on

__________________
Forum consigliere

I tend to give the nod to Bill Ruger-he was a designer AND a manufacturer AND he pioneered the use of investment casting, John Browning pretty much left the manufacturing to others. The Ruger organization has kept tight control over their designs, not licensing them to others (plus many of John M.'s design are in the Public Domain now)
hence Ruger designs are seen as Ruger specific-how many firms haave manufactured the M1911? On the other hand Browning designed the M1911, the military BAR, the M1919 machine gun, the M2 .50 Caliber which has given him more publicity, brand recognition so to speak.

No contest. Browning produced a mulititude of ORIGINAL designs and inventions that are still in use today. Ruger merely improved existing types of firearms and was very adept at implementing modern production techniques that allowed him to build a product of reasonable quality and to sell them cheaper than the competition.

That’s more than Bill Ruger every designed. Just what did Bill Ruger design of significance compared to the designs of John Browning? If one examines the total body of work that John Browning designed and compare it with Ruger’s body of work Ruger looks like a novice. Ask yourself this how much design work did Bill Ruger really do?

On a larger scale, Bill probably did more design work then John Moses Browning ever did. His scale was building modern equipment and design processes that moved the gun making tradition from a dying 19th century standard into the 20th century. His vision bridged the era from before WWII into current state of the art manufacturing.

Winchester, Colt, and many others have folded shop on the traditional guns that many grew up shooting. Ruger's vision is still carrying some of these traditional gun designs forward...

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

In your dreams if it were not for others Bill Ruger would not have had anyone to copy from.

Dennis...

Bought many of those Japanese Browning's lately?

I'd have to toss it back to you. Rugers are still made in America, by American workers....


giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

To paraphrase what Bum Phillips said about Earl Campbell being the best running back in professional football: John Browning may not the the best gun designer who ever lived, but it doesn't take long to call the roll.

Investment casting was around long before Bill Ruger, he was only instrumental in its use in firearms manufacturing. While some seem to think this is a good thing, I see it as the worst thing that ever happened to the industry. It sent a clear message to manufacturers that there is a market for second rate firearms, made by unskilled laborers and priced way above their real value. Now the market is flooded with them.

To my way of thinking, JMB would compare toTomas Edison. Bill Ruger would be comparible to Henry Ford.

Edison invented things. Ford took existing inventions and made them work better.

That doesen't make Ford inferior to Edison. Both were brilliant. But in differnt ways.

THAT is an interesting observation.... I posit that if Ruger hadn't come along that S&W's would be made in South America by Banger Puta-Colt would be the pre-eminent American arms manufacturer and rburg would never have been born.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Howdaya say Cajun in Portuguese?
Never mind, I'll use the translator.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I own only 3 Rugers-an Old Model Blackhawk 357/9MM Convertible, and Old Model Super Blackhawk, a stainless Security Six. I don't consider them second, not by a long shot, my 6" Security Siz has always been very accurate. Rugers-Dan Wessons, as well, do not have the "cachet" of S&W or Colt but their quality is just as good.

FWIW, my Bisley Vaquero is every bit as well-finished and well made as a new Model 25 and will spend YEARS happily digesting loads that would quickly shoot the 25 out of time if not kaboom it. Before the new Classics came out, I would have said that I would hands down buy a new Ruger before a new S&W. But now that Ruger has inexplicably dropped the beefy framed Vaquero and Bisley Vaquero in favor of the smaller framed and less stout New Vaq and S&W has brought out the Classics line (Triple Lock .45 Colt, PLEASE?) Smith has eased out ahead by a neck if only asthetically; my gun tastes run from c. 1870-1935.

It's almost not a fair question. I own, and have owned many Rugers over the years, all of them outstanding firearms. Bill Ruger was a great sportsman and innovator. Most inventors have based some part of their design on pre-existing over the centuries, that's what we call progress, developement, etc. Both John Browning and Bill Ruger did the same. However, John Brownings innovations led to huge amounts of productivity, and introduced incredible innovations based on simpler mechanisms, which were almost revolutionary. No one would claim that Browning invented the lever action or the machine gun or auto pistol, but no single designer was able to make reliable, easy to maintain weapons like Browning. No other single designer would have the global impact on military weapons either. Browning improved and simplified the Maxim design enough that it spawned an entire series of reliable, sturdy and successful light and heavy machine guns, some of which are still used today. Other countries quickly based weapons on his designs, the Japanese and Germans most notably. The M2 .50 caliber still in use by the US military still bears his name on the TMs and of course the caliber was designed around the weapon (.50 caliber Browning Machine Gun). The M2 and matching cartridge could arguably be named the most important small arms of the twentieth century. Let's not forget Browning's relationship with FN which had quite an impact of it's own in Europe. Money is no measure of this kind of success, that was not part of the question. Many weapons around the world are based on "Browning" design, military, police and civilian and that's not mentioning cartridges based on weapons he designed. Browning had impact globally and had actual impact on history, so I would have to cast my vote for him. No respect lost for Bill Ruger though, and the great firearms his company has produced!

Raleigh

I think that pretty well sums it up. The first shotgun Browning designed and built was a was a muzzle loader and his last was the A-5. The 1911 and M2 50 cal are almost 100 years old, yet armies are still fielding them. Not second or third rate armies either. How do you top that?

Yet Ruger was great at designing and manufacturing reliable, affordable firearms people wanted. Single action revolver designs still fall into two categories, Rugers and Colt.

Rugers I have owned are: MKI, MKII Target, Speed Six, 2 Security Sixes, 2 Blackhawks, Redhawk, Vaquero, 2 10/22s and a Mini 14. I was also issued a Security Six for a security guard I had. They were all 70s-80s production except for maybe the Redhawk and one of the Blackhawks. I'm not sure when they were made, but I owned them in the 90s.

While they were functional, except for the .30 Carbine Blackhawk, "accurate" and "guality" are two descriptors I'd never use for them. Their quality was even less than the older Taurus revolvers I owned and is closer to my LLama Comanche. Poor accuracy and atrocious balance were the main reasons I got rid of them, all of them. Also in the 80s I worked for a local dealer. Rugers quality at that time was to the point we couldn't keep a SA in stock. We would open a box and send it back to the factory, where they should have never left in the first place. Their other firerarms had the highest rate of return and trade back than any other brand. It finally got to the point we wouldn't carry them and refused to order them. If someone tried to trade one in that was purchased from some other dealer, we suggested they sell it somewhere else because we weren't going to get burned on them anymore.

Maybe their quality has gotten better, but that experience left a much longer lasting impression on me. I simply don't trust the way they do business. And they may very well be the best deal on the market today, I won't buy any other new firearms either so I'll never know.

So, if it took Bill Rugers death to get the quality control improved to a reasonable level, isn't this whole thread is a moot point?

Since we've digressed from the OP, I've owned 2 Rugers, a mini 14 and a Single Six. Sold both, and have never bought another.

__________________
Sure you did

si---------------------

Coming along late to this, but you're joking... right?

The poster who said this is not even a fair question has it right. Ruger's and Browning's accomplishments are not in the same field.

Browning was an inventor - a visionary and mechanical genius who, fortunately for us all, applied his gift to firearms. Ruger was a businessman.

In his field, Browning was incomparable. He virtually destroyed his competition whenever he chose to create. Sometimes, he was so advanced he had none. The business accomplishments of Ruger are fairly ordinary - though, of course, admirable.

I have never had a complaint about the accuracy, reliability or the handling qualities of any of the ruger firearms I have owned since I bought my first standard model 22 back in the 70's. I can't say that about llama or taurus. Maybe they aren't as pretty as some others but they work just as well (or better!) and they keep working. Bill Ruger's greatest skill was in coming up with production methods that produced a sound reliable firearm that was affordable for the average guy. When buying used guns I am confident about a ruger working, other brands not so much. --Getting back to the original question though, I still state that no one can compare to John Browning as a firearms designer. Ruger was innnovative with production methods more than anything. Browning was far ahead of anyone in his time or now!

I'd have to go with Browning. A true inventor in my way of thinking when it comes to firearms mechanisms. The shear number of designs and applications are astounding.

What Browning did have going for him was a number of large, very high quality manufacturers that were ready to bid for his designs.
The fact that FN, Remington, Winchester, Colt and the US Gov't saw his work as cutting edge at the time and were able to mass produce the same with quality was something Ruger has not been able to do,, and has never wanted to do.
Ruger kept his designs to himself for the most part and wanted to be both designer and mfr. Browning wanted only to design/redesign,,sell the mfg rights to it and move on.

+1 on that

Without question, Browning.

__________________
<><

i think the superposed was his last shotgun design.

I truly wonder if John Browning did all of this on his own. Colt had a design/engineering team and the tool room. Browning's designs would have to be prototyped and then tooled for. I think there was a good deal more people involved then just JMB...

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Giz, Same could be said about Ruger.


Ken

I admire them both. The both made a lasting impact on the industry. During my lifetime Ruger has introduced more new and innovative firearms than most of the rest of the firearms companies combined. Think about it. The Standard Model, Blackhawk, Mini 14, Number One, and the Red Label shotgun were just a few of the firearms introduced. They were affordable, of decent quality, and available to the public. I love old world craftsmanship as well as the next guy but recognize that without modern production techniques we couldn't afford most of the firearms produced today.

I have to ask these questions. What was innovative? What was a totally new design principle of significance? Not meant to be rude or condescending. I see nothing ground breaking here.

I forgot all about the Red Label. We had several people come in and request them only to hear they were an allocated item and the backlog was about a year long. Usually the guys would change their mind and buy a Browning instead of waiting. This went on for a long time. Then one day I got a call from my distributor. She asked me how many Red Labels I wanted at a very low price! Ruger had apparently been holding them back to create a higher demand and to drive the price up. They must have quit selling and backed up the storeroom at the factory.

I've heard this cliche so much it makes me sick. When these new production techniques came along it didn't make the guns any cheaper. And I never had a problem affording a new S&W when they were made the "old" way, so how did the cost of living affect the price of firearms all of a sudden. If you look at Rugers pricing history their handguns started off pretty low compared to S&Ws, then, after they started to gain in popularity, their price increases doubled S&Ws. Explain that one to me. Using all these improved techniques and materials to make them cheaper to produe, how did their costs increase so much over the labor intensive, useless old manufacturing process used by S&W? Just about every "modification" Ruger made to his firearms was to make it cheaper to produce, not to make it better.

I remember back in the 80s the firearms industry was in a world of hurt. Sales were down, some companies sold out or folded all together. We got an envelope from Ruger, it had a copy of an article from a business magazine talking about the firearms industry and how two manufacturers mangaged to get through. Marlin had invested in electronics and the profits from that industy was enough to keep the firearms alive. Ruger stated they eliminated the extra steps in their gun making process and had a major price increase. Basically they cut their quality and raised their prices, again. Yup, real genius at work there.

He built a successful major firearms company from scratch. Many others tried and failed. He had a knack for understanding what the customer wanted. Many of the firearms he produced were extremely successful. Consider the Standard Model .22, Blackhawk, Mini 14, 1022, M77 rifle, Red Label shotgun, and the list goes on. He was able to keep manufacturing costs low enough to sell a LOT of guns at a profit. This is innovation in my book. Modern manufacturing techniques were key to making Ruger as successful and profitable as it has been. Colt and Winchester struggled in the post WWII era to keep their costs in line. Remington did better with the introduction of their 721 rifle. This rifle (which evolved into the Model 700) made use of modern manufacturing techniques and proved to be a commercial success. The companies that were able to adapt were successful those that didn't faded.

Browning, his guns have stood the test of time, What has been more long lasting than the 1911 and ma deuce under millitary conditions?

I think it would be pretty hard to argue that Bill Ruger was the most successful firearms designer/manufacturer of our time (past 60 years).

He is credited with saving the SA handguns after Colt was driving the final nails into that coffin. His autoloading 44 Carbine and the No.1 were his first two centerfire rifles, and the 10/22 with it's rotary magazine followed soon after. In recent years Sturm Ruger has carried as many as 300 different pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in their catalog.

Even after his death, he left a company that was able to survive a downturn in the gun industry...and is currently leading through constant innovation.

His success is our success. We all have benefited either directly or indirectly from Bill Ruger's willingness to improve and innovate a industry that was in decline.

giz

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum