I understand Ruger's attempt to be pragmatic, but I think it backfired quite a bit. Not just in terms of the reaction from gun owners, but in the way that gun controllers repeatedly shoved in our faces the rhetoric that "even gun manufacturers support gun control"...as if they're doing it out of the goods of their hearts (as opposed to concern for their businesses).

Anyway, there's a bit of a darker dimension as well...I dunno if you guys have heard, but there is some evidence (I'll have to find the article again) that Ruger and Colt were also supporters of the 1989 Assault Weapons Importation Ban and urged President Bush (H.W., not W.) to sign it. And that was almost entirely their own initiative; they saw it as an opportunity to remove their competition from Norinco, H&K, Steyr, etc. in the marketplace for military-style weapons. Like everyone else, they didn't anticipate the switch to "post-ban" models of those weapons.

I do realize that we can't necessarily expect commercial enterprises such as gun manufacturers to value 2nd Amendment principles over business. That's the nature of capitalism, and I accept that. But it's still pretty hard for me to take Ruger seriously anymore, in spite of their recent relaxation of attitudes. After all, there have been manufacturers such as Barrett that have shown a willingness to do what Ruger didn't.

What did Barett do? Ive heard good things about them but never specifics. And ruger is a whole new breed now, making new original weapons. The LCP and LCR for CC, the SR9, the 327 federal, they know their stuff.

I heard Ruger made a new AR-15 rifle of their own and that it is pretty good.

The Ruger SR-556, saw it at cabelas about 1600 dollars, very good for a piston gn, especially seeing it comes with 3 magpul p-mags troy indstries flip up sights and rail covers, hoge grip and full top rail.

It's a Zombie thread. Digging it out.
 

So I got to shoot a Glock 19 with the so-called New York trigger installed on it today. It's heavy at 12 pounds, but no worse than a revolver. It's a very consistent trigger and in some ways it has more constant resistance than the 5.5 lb trigger pull that comes from the factory. I still don't think I would want it on my Glock, but it's not as bad as I expected. However without practice it would be a harder pistol to operate.

I remember when the story below occurred (in summary, NINE bystanders wounded by two cops going after one shooter), and wondering if it wouldn't have happened if they had lighter triggers. It also doesn't help that if the cops are locals, they probably didn't grow up shooting either.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25...olice-gunfire/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/ny...anted=all&_r=0

It's a combination of a lot of things from lack of training and practice the police force has. In the military, they are constantly training and drilling weapons handling but the police force has really low standards.

If you go to the second link, you'll see that the city has paid out $18 million in compensation to shot bystanders, and that's not counting the legal costs of fighting those who want more than just basic medical costs. If the heavier triggers are to save the city money from accidental shootings, I'm not sure it's worth the money.

The problem is the idea of putting a heavier trigger on a gun that was never designed to have one. The reasons why people pick striker fire guns or even single action guns is for a shorter trigger pull that isn't going to give you carpal tunnel and arthritis

When I was in the Army we rarely went shooting. Couple times a year to qualify and once in a blue moon we would go to the range to do some live fire training. Now I wasn't in the infantry (and there was a difference), but many folks in the military don't shoot as much as you might think. I do a lot of dry firing practice myself and go to the range once or twice a month for live fire. I recommend it to my fellow officers, but I'm not sure how many actually do that.