Received a call from Ruger...

[USMA84DAB]

I just got off the phone with Eric Shellhorn. He has some measure of responsibility over client service at Ruger. Full and fair disclosure - he is USMA class of '81 and only hazed me a little bit. (I am an underclassman, graduating in 1984.) The call went great.

HOW WE GOT HERE
I wrote an actual printed letter in DEC, sent snail mail, to the CEO at Ruger detailing the situation with my 9.3x62 Lipsey's exclusive Alaskan Bush Rifle. It shot 3.25" low at 25 yards using 250 grain ammo (light for the chambering, as 286 grain is "normal", so this load should have shot high). When I called for a shorter front site blade, the service person offered two things:
1. A replacement front sight blade the exact same height - obviously of zero use
2. A call tag to ship the rifle back to them so they could fix the rifle - not acceptable as there are only 249 other 9.3x62 Alaskan Bush Rifles in North America and I was not willing to risk mine being stolen or smashed on the way there or back

WHAT THEY ARE DOING
Eric indicated that their policies should be a general rule for 80% of the time and then a starting point when the rule didn't make sense. I get the idea that they will improve the service reps' policy book. Eric also indicated that their engineer/product manager was back in the plant finding out why/how this happened and what is the answer to fixing it. He mentioned that as they started wargaming solutions, the idea of sending all of the front sight blade heights that they use (four different heights) with each rifle came up - probably not a realistic choice for a business due to costs. They are working on tracking down the way to do it better.

I told Eric that yes, I had some butt-hurt over paying full MSRP on a Lipsey's exclusive rifle that didn't regulate. I also am a horrid fanboy for the Ruger Alaskan and was really sending in a spot report (it's what Cavalrymen do) to them because I don't want Ruger to be hurt by this problem. Eric indicated that within 48 hours of getting my letter in his hand to act on, he ran across another report for the same malady. It seems the feedback to them is very limited and/or slow, so maybe more of us need to write more.

BOTTOM LINE
The brass at Ruger knows they have an issue and they are working on resolving it. I think it takes some humbleness to admit the issue and seek a resolution, so I am encouraged by Eric's call and sharing that they are working on it. Being heard makes for a fair amount of salve on the wound. I am still cheering for Ruger.

 

[NDWoods]

Good on Ruger

Thank you for sharing

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

I had a similar problem with a M70 Safari chambered .416 Remington Magnum several years ago. That rifle shot one ragged hole at 50 yards but several feet low. In my case during the assembly process the barrel was threaded into the receiver at a downward angle of a couple degrees not visible to the naked eye. The rifle was replaced because the receiver had been threaded at an angle off 90 degrees.

 

[Bullthrower338]

I had a bunch of issues with a Taffin PPP Blackhawk and I was pissed off badly, Ruger handled it promptly and had the gun back in my hand in about 8 days. Supposedly they actually stopped production and solved the problem! Cheers to Ruger

 

[NoStepOnSnek]

While you have him in conversation you should bring up the AfricaHunting.com custom rifle idea since the dealer fell through

 

[USMA84DAB]

Guess you better DM me on that one - no idea what you are talking about.

 

[dogcat1]

When you are in the luxury toy business, customer service is the "biggest thing".
I never understand gun makers, ammo makers (Swift to name one), safari operators, and all of the hangers on to this business that do not make 100% effort to do everything right the first time - no questions asked, no excuses, no blaming. FIX THE PROBLEM!
In Ruger's case, they are a mid level gun maker. They are not at the top. They should look at Winchester and Remington to see what a train wreck in customer service or quality will do. They should look at Swift and see a company managed by a farm family in rural Kansas cannot make ammo or bullets to keep up with requests. Even when theirs if the highest price. Go figure. They even have a crap website.

They need to be exactly like Parkwest or Talley or anyone who really gets customer service. Make it right when it can remotely impact your business.....

 

[deewayne2003]

If I were Ruger I would include a free front sight that was extra high and could be filed down, then sent back to ruger and permanent front sight of custom height would be returned.

Much like the CDS dials for Leupold but it would involve shipping and shipping sights is cheap; make the first one free or moderately priced and make a big profit on additional.

 

[tarbe]

I’m guessing they haven’t had many complaints because very few of these rifles have been put on a target with irons. Or even shot at all.

I’m surprised they didn’t test fire the set-up at the factory.

You are the maniac flying the experimental plane!

 

[ACM]

I bet Ruger will do you you right. Good on you for letting them know.

In my experience with open sights @50yds, lighter bullet loads (or higher velocity) have always shot lower than what the gun was regulated for. They have less time in the barrel and exit the muzzle earlier in the recoil path, making them impact lower. Heavier, (or just slower) bullets stay in the barrel longer and leave the muzzle at a higher point in the recoil path, resulting in higher point of impact. Unless in situations of greatly reduced recoil.

Yours being 3.5” low at 50yds I believe is still excessive.

 

[Anbessa Gedai]

I bet Ruger will do you you right. Good on you for letting them know.

In my experience with open sights @50yds, lighter bullet loads (or higher velocity) have always shot lower than what the gun was regulated for. They have less time in the barrel and exit the muzzle earlier in the recoil path, making them impact lower. Heavier, (or just slower) bullets stay in the barrel longer and leave the muzzle at a higher point in the recoil path, resulting in higher point of impact. Unless in situations of greatly reduced recoil.

Yours being 3.5” low at 50yds I believe is still excessive.

I appreciate what you're saying . . . but then why doesn't the same rule apply for the same rifle scoped? (or does it?)

 

[pilar]

Ruger has known about this wrong sights problem for months, hopefully they get this sorted out soon, read the comments in this video on what ruger is trying out to get it sorted

 

[Captain Munro]

I just got off the phone with Eric Shellhorn. He has some measure of responsibility over client service at Ruger. Full and fair disclosure - he is USMA class of '81 and only hazed me a little bit. (I am an underclassman, graduating in 1984.) The call went great.

HOW WE GOT HERE
I wrote an actual printed letter in DEC, sent snail mail, to the CEO at Ruger detailing the situation with my 9.3x62 Lipsey's exclusive Alaskan Bush Rifle. It shot 3.25" low at 25 yards using 250 grain ammo (light for the chambering, as 286 grain is "normal", so this load should have shot high). When I called for a shorter front site blade, the service person offered two things:
1. A replacement front sight blade the exact same height - obviously of zero use
2. A call tag to ship the rifle back to them so they could fix the rifle - not acceptable as there are only 249 other 9.3x62 Alaskan Bush Rifles in North America and I was not willing to risk mine being stolen or smashed on the way there or back

WHAT THEY ARE DOING
Eric indicated that their policies should be a general rule for 80% of the time and then a starting point when the rule didn't make sense. I get the idea that they will improve the service reps' policy book. Eric also indicated that their engineer/product manager was back in the plant finding out why/how this happened and what is the answer to fixing it. He mentioned that as they started wargaming solutions, the idea of sending all of the front sight blade heights that they use (four different heights) with each rifle came up - probably not a realistic choice for a business due to costs. They are working on tracking down the way to do it better.

I told Eric that yes, I had some butt-hurt over paying full MSRP on a Lipsey's exclusive rifle that didn't regulate. I also am a horrid fanboy for the Ruger Alaskan and was really sending in a spot report (it's what Cavalrymen do) to them because I don't want Ruger to be hurt by this problem. Eric indicated that within 48 hours of getting my letter in his hand to act on, he ran across another report for the same malady. It seems the feedback to them is very limited and/or slow, so maybe more of us need to write more.

BOTTOM LINE
The brass at Ruger knows they have an issue and they are working on resolving it. I think it takes some humbleness to admit the issue and seek a resolution, so I am encouraged by Eric's call and sharing that they are working on it. Being heard makes for a fair amount of salve on the wound. I am still cheering for Ruger.

Weird, my Ruger African 35 Whelen Shoots about that low. But I did put the v notch express sights on it, like the ones on the non lipseys models.

 

[gbflyer]

So in other words they are having some meetings and your rifle still doesn't regulate. Great. How about they just send you the parts, you're happy and it's done. They won't have to admit defeat and replace all 249 of them as most people use scopes or simply don't shoot the rifles.

Bean counters.....