Posted: 10/6/2013 1:07:17 AM EDT
|
Any idea why the company would make the barrel assembly the serial numbered part on their 22/45 and the like? Seems like they have made their barrels more expensive than they need to be. By making the barrel the "firearm", they've made it financially inconvenient for most. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to buy a number of different barrels and not have to go through all the headaches of buying another (Handgun) every time?
Just a thought. Jim Smith |
| I get what your saying, but from ruger's standpoint I would say they are making more money because of it. If someone wants a different barrel length, a bull barrel, fluted barrel, ect. they have to buy a whole new gun from ruger. I agree its a pain to have to go through the whole buying process to customize your upper, But It's also nice to have a selection of guns to shoot without having to switch parts around. |
|
But do you think they could sell more barrels than complete pistols? My way of thinking is their SOP is holding back MANY folks who would like to customize or just want another type of barrel, for another type of shooting? True, they're going to sell a few extra firearms, but imagine how many barrels they would sell.
Again, it's just my opinion and there's no right or wrong answer, I just want to get other people's opinion on the subject. Thanks for responding, Jim Smith |
|
Quoted:
By making the barrel the "firearm".... The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. |
|
Quoted:
The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. Quoted:
Quoted:
By making the barrel the "firearm".... The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. Yeah, but why isn't the grip frame the serial numbered part like it is on a 1911? |
|
Quoted:
The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. Quoted:
Quoted:
By making the barrel the "firearm".... The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. ATF considers the Ruger Mk. II and Mk. III upper to be the "firearm". There is no serial number on the lower and lower frames can be freely bought and sold across state lines without paperwork. However, try and buy a Tactical Solutions mk.II/mkIII upper and you will fill out a form 4473. The FAL is the same way. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, but why isn't the grip frame the serial numbered part like it is on a 1911? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By making the barrel the "firearm".... The barrel IS NOT "the firearm"...........the receiver it screws into is "the firearm". And yes, its difficult to remove barrels from a Ruger receiver.....because once assembled Ruger intends for them to stay together. When the Ruger Standard was designed, .22 semiauto pistols it competed with were the Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards. The HS allowed barrel changes, but both were considerably more expensive than the Ruger. Yeah, but why isn't the grip frame the serial numbered part like it is on a 1911? For the same reason the stock of a rifle is not considered "the firearm"................because ATF says so. 
ATF determines which part of a firearm is required to be serialized. On some rifles its the lower receiver, on others the upper receiver. Some firearms its not the frame or receiver but the "fire control group" (see KelTecs and plastic Sigs) |
|
Quoted:
I think you will find that the part with the serial number will be the "firearm". If not, there would be no way to track the "firearm". I just wonder why Ruger put the serial number on the barreled receiver and not the frame? Jim Smith ATF determines which part of a firearm is required to be serialized. Serial numbers often appear on more than part of a firearm....I have a couple of FN Hi Powers with the serial#'s on frame, slide and barrel. Simply saying "the part with the serial number will be the firearm" is flat wrong. |
|
Quoted:
ATF has nothing to do with this. It's the manufactured part with the serial number that makes that part the "firearm" ATF could care less. Jim Smith Absolute horseshit. Using your "example" a firearm with the serialnumber located on barrel, frame and slide is actually THREE firearms since all those parts are "the manufactured part with the serial number". Glocks have the serial number on slide, frame and barrel....................do you still believe a Glock barrel is a firearm by itself? 
|
|
Quoted:
ATF determines which part of a firearm is required to be serialized. Serial numbers often appear on more than part of a firearm....I have a couple of FN Hi Powers with the serial#'s on frame, slide and barrel. Simply saying "the part with the serial number will be the firearm" is flat wrong. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you will find that the part with the serial number will be the "firearm". If not, there would be no way to track the "firearm". I just wonder why Ruger put the serial number on the barreled receiver and not the frame? Jim Smith ATF determines which part of a firearm is required to be serialized. Serial numbers often appear on more than part of a firearm....I have a couple of FN Hi Powers with the serial#'s on frame, slide and barrel. Simply saying "the part with the serial number will be the firearm" is flat wrong. Your talking about government contracts. Lets say Springfield made a Garand. They put a serial number on the receiver. All of the parts that were to go into what makes this firearm a real firearm was serialized for governmental use. BTW, was there a BATFE department within the government when serial numbers became mandatory on firearms? I believe this was sometime around 1900. No there wasn't a BATFE department then, so how could they have started a process decades before their existence? Jim Smith |
|
Quoted:
Absolute horseshit. Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF has nothing to do with this. It's the manufactured part with the serial number that makes that part the "firearm" ATF could care less. Jim Smith Absolute horseshit. Another fine example of someone with no ammunition to continue their fight resorts to posts like this. Jim Smith |
|
Quoted:
Your talking about government contracts. No, I'm not. Lets say Springfield made a Garand. They put a serial number on the receiver. All of the parts that were to go into what makes this firearm a real firearm was serialized for governmental use. Awesome info, but has nothing to do with this discussion BTW, was there a BATFE department within the government when serial numbers became mandatory on firearms? Serial numbers were not required on all firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 I believe this was sometime around 1900. No there wasn't a BATFE department then, so how could they have started a process decades before their existence? WTF are you talking about? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you will find that the part with the serial number will be the "firearm". If not, there would be no way to track the "firearm". I just wonder why Ruger put the serial number on the barreled receiver and not the frame? Jim Smith ATF determines which part of a firearm is required to be serialized. Serial numbers often appear on more than part of a firearm....I have a couple of FN Hi Powers with the serial#'s on frame, slide and barrel. Simply saying "the part with the serial number will be the firearm" is flat wrong. Your talking about government contracts. No, I'm not. Lets say Springfield made a Garand. They put a serial number on the receiver. All of the parts that were to go into what makes this firearm a real firearm was serialized for governmental use. Awesome info, but has nothing to do with this discussion BTW, was there a BATFE department within the government when serial numbers became mandatory on firearms? Serial numbers were not required on all firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 I believe this was sometime around 1900. No there wasn't a BATFE department then, so how could they have started a process decades before their existence? WTF are you talking about? |
|
Quoted:
Another fine example of someone with no ammunition to continue their fight resorts to posts like this. Nope, just pointing out in the most concise language possible that you don't know jack about what you are posting. Read this:http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2008/08/082208-openletter-ffl-marking-variances.html and this: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-overview.html and this:http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=7fea93f588d4dfac10facbb53eb7293f&rgn=div6&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.6&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.3.6.1.2 Again, simply having the serial# on a particular part doesn't necessarily make it a firearm, the serial number MUST be stamped or engraved on at least one part: the receiver, frame or barrel. |
|
Quoted:
[div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;']http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=56964 Quoted:
Quoted:
Ruger started doing it that way in 1949. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;']http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=56964 And 1949 predates the BATFE by a good many years. As I said before, my hypothesis is Ruger chose to mark the longer lasting forged part versus the cheaper, more disposable stamped part. |
|
Quoted:
And 1949 predates the BATFE by a good many years. As I said before, my hypothesis is Ruger chose to mark the longer lasting forged part versus the cheaper, more disposable stamped part. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ruger started doing it that way in 1949. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;']http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=56964 And 1949 predates the BATFE by a good many years. As I said before, my hypothesis is Ruger chose to mark the longer lasting forged part versus the cheaper, more disposable stamped part. Easier to stamp the barrel. The stamped frame would need to have a jig made to stamp the serial number in it. A hard enough hit would bend it, not so with the barrel |
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, here goes. I think that they chose the upper receiver back when it didn't matter very much and they are either stuck doing it that way now or it is difficult or expensive to change at this point. Ruger would make a metric shit ton of money if you could buy different barrel/upper combos through the mail. Most people won't buy six different MKIII's to get variety but they might buy multiple uppers to get the variety they are looking for.
From a business standpoint I think it is a mistake. The whys of the decision I can only guess. I personally would buy some threaded uppers, I won't buy multiple firearms to get them though! Bottom line it was a "mistake" that was made a long time ago and probably won't ever change. As for the multiple serial numbers on some firearms, I believe some countries in Europe require that and so it carries over to guns sold in the US. In those cases the ATF has made clear which of those three parts constitutes the "firearm". |
|
ATF says:
"By engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast stamped (impressed) or placed on the frame or receiver thereof an individual serial number." ATF does not care which location, but it has to be on a part necessary to fire the weapon. (that's another can of worms just opened) Buckmarks and Smith 22a's put their marks on the frame. You can mail order all the barrels you want and have them sent to your house. When Bill Ruger started making his famous pistol....long before any of this stuff was law he chose to put the number on the receiver. At the time (as mentioned earlier) a serial number was optional. I have a Remington rifle which just has a date code. Another .22 rifle I have from the same year but from Marlin has a serial number. It was totally up to the manufacturer. All that changed in 1968. But ATF did not dictate where the number had to go, the maker had an option but it had to be on an "essential part", that is, not the stock or some part you could remove and still have the firearm function. Back when the Ruger pistol came out I don't thing Bill and his crew gave much thought to the spare barrel movement so they didn't worry about where that number went. Its just the way it happened. . The real oddity is that the "lower" of a Ruger is not legally a firearm. Tac Sol and others have tried to buy Ruger lowers but Ruger refuses to sell them seperately even though its perfectly legal as they are technically not even firearms. Ruger just says if you want a lower you have to buy the whole pistol, period. There are some after-market lowers you can buy but they are twice as much as buying a complete Ruger pistol. So, "it is what it is". IF you want a .22 pistol that you can stock up on spare barrels, buy a Browning Buckmark or a Smith 22a. The uppers are actually quite affordable and they can be mailed directly to you without paperwork. (There are other makers too that do the same thing but those are the most common two I can think of). I guess Ruger would just rather sell complete pistols and make more money. Why change now? |