Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > California handguns
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:50 PM
smittty smittty is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 8 / 90%
Default S&W wins Ruger's share of California

So S&W announces that they are letting all their existing semi-auto pistols fall off the roster just as Ruger did however they made a couple exceptions...

They offer the CA compliant Shield and a CA compliant Glock called the SD9VE meanwhile a Ruger has actually let all their semi-auto pistols fall off the roster with nothing to replace them with.

***Therefore S&W has effectively just taken most of Ruger's market share in California.

The CA Shield is going for about $100 less than a Glock and their SD9VE is selling for under $400.

Good job S&W!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:53 PM
MA5177 MA5177 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orange county
Posts: 1,311
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I dont get Ruger for doing this, ya lets punish the pro gun consumer over stupid anti gun politics.

Actually I think most of their guns suck anyway, at least anyting I would consider carying.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:54 PM
philobeddoe's Avatar
philobeddoe philobeddoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 1,919
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MA5177 View Post
I dont get Ruger for doing this, ya lets punish the pro gun consumer over stupid anti gun politics.

Actually I think most of their guns suck anyway, at least anyting I would consider carying.
good for Ruger ...

starve the market and let us go to the courts
and effectively demonstrate that this was the very intention of the roster
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:56 PM
GlockedAndLoaded's Avatar
GlockedAndLoaded GlockedAndLoaded is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 411
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MA5177 View Post
I dont get Ruger for doing this, ya lets punish the pro gun consumer over stupid anti gun politics.

Actually I think most of their guns suck anyway, at least anyting I would consider carying.
I commended them. People in California can fight back at anytime just like Colorado or Connecticut.

If I was Ruger I'd give the finger to California politics too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-13-2014, 12:58 PM
farmerjoe's Avatar
farmerjoe farmerjoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The I.E.
Posts: 757
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philobeddoe View Post
good for Ruger ...

starve the market and let us go to the courts
and effectively demonstrate that this was the very intention of the roster
hi philo
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2014, 1:00 PM
djflash djflash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 786
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Show me where they announced that and not some other news report. Where's there public press release? Stop the FUD. Most of their semi's are going to require recertification due to performance enhancements and rather than incorporate microstamping they've elected to let them fall off the roster. The Shield has not had any modifications and will remain on roster until changes are made to trigger a recertification.

Or read for yourself http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...nia-drop-dead/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-13-2014, 1:19 PM
UberPatriot's Avatar
UberPatriot UberPatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,610
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philobeddoe View Post
good for Ruger ...

starve the market and let us go to the courts
and effectively demonstrate that this was the very intention of the roster
+1 ^^^
__________________
Location: North Bay Area/Marin

NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-13-2014, 1:31 PM
rogervzv's Avatar
rogervzv rogervzv is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 1,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is odd that S&W is keeping the Shield on the roster while Ruger let the LC9 drop off. Very strange. I own stock in both companies...
__________________
Come and Take It!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-13-2014, 1:37 PM
mtnman's Avatar
mtnman mtnman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Central Comifornia Mtns
Posts: 735
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Asking what Ruger is doing is understandable if your on the buyers end, but if your on the MFG end, you say" Life is too short to be F'in with these Idiots"
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-13-2014, 1:51 PM
Varg Vikernes's Avatar
Varg Vikernes Varg Vikernes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bay Area SF
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djflash View Post
Show me where they announced that and not some other news report. Where's there public press release? Stop the FUD. Most of their semi's are going to require recertification due to performance enhancements and rather than incorporate microstamping they've elected to let them fall off the roster. The Shield has not had any modifications and will remain on roster until changes are made to trigger a recertification.

Or read for yourself http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...nia-drop-dead/
Stop reading Truth About Guns,

And there is already a months old press release from S&W

here:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore...icroSFinal.pdf

Last edited by Varg Vikernes; 04-13-2014 at 1:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-13-2014, 2:32 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 4,235
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlockedAndLoaded View Post
I commended them. People in California can fight back at anytime just like Colorado or Connecticut.

If I was Ruger I'd give the finger to California politics too.
They are getting their just desserts from when Bill Ruger stepped up in favor of the orig AW ban since his Mini 14 wasn't affected he gobbled up a lot of the market.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2014, 2:38 PM
penguinofsleep's Avatar
penguinofsleep penguinofsleep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,947
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philobeddoe View Post
good for Ruger ...

starve the market and let us go to the courts
and effectively demonstrate that this was the very intention of the roster
agreed.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2014, 2:49 PM
saudadeii's Avatar
saudadeii saudadeii is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's nothing "odd" about it. The Shields and the SD's were approved before the microstamping law went into effect.

Unless the law changes, these too will drop off the roster eventually.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2014, 3:00 PM
etherwalker etherwalker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saudadeii View Post
There's nothing "odd" about it. The Shields and the SD's were approved before the microstamping law went into effect.

Unless the law changes, these too will drop off the roster eventually.
Possibly, but I suspect that the delay in getting in CA Shields had something to do with S&W tooling up a line to manufacture their two remaining rostered semi's in exactly the same way for as long as the roster lasts.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-13-2014, 3:02 PM
Jalibass's Avatar
Jalibass Jalibass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I would think a manufacturer complying with any anti firearm regulations or restrictions only compromises our goal and sets a precedent of the left dictating the future of the industry and our rights.
Too bad companies didn't sell standard capacity featured rifle bonds in lieu of neutered rifles and use the money to fight these rediculous legislations.
If no manufacturer acknowledged the handgun roster it would have got us off the couch and on the phone a whole lot sooner.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-13-2014, 3:04 PM
kakinuma-kun's Avatar
kakinuma-kun kakinuma-kun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 199
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Restraint of free trade? Seems un-American and unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-13-2014, 3:31 PM
smittty smittty is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 8 / 90%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saudadeii View Post
There's nothing "odd" about it. The Shields and the SD's were approved before the microstamping law went into effect.

Unless the law changes, these too will drop off the roster eventually.
And if they maintain their current specifications they will remain on the roster just as Glock is doing with their Gen 3's.

When I first learned of Ruger letting their guns fall off the roster, then the same from S&W, I thought they we're teaming up and was hoping other manufacturers would join them. Now I see it's not a team effort, just individual companies going their own direction.

With the CA Shield and SD9VE, S&W choice to stay in California, and Ruger didn't.

I would have liked to see a collaborative effort to defeat the roster but that's not what this looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-13-2014, 4:34 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,846
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Both, Ruger and S&W didn't do it on principle. It's rather their manufacturing or engineering component changes on the majority of the models, so they knew they had to do re-certification, which they would fail. If you check the roster, both S&W and Ruger added a couple of models to the roster recently (mostly different colors of the existing roster-ed models). So, it's not like they are against the roster on principle (otherwise, they would've called off all their modes immediately), it's more like they can't (or don't want to) add microstamping in order to keep their existing models on the roster.
Unless the roster is overturned, this will happen to the majority of the big gun manufacturers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-13-2014, 6:18 PM
Oldmandan's Avatar
Oldmandan Oldmandan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittty View Post
So S&W announces that they are letting all their existing semi-auto pistols fall off the roster just as Ruger did however they made a couple exceptions...

They offer the CA compliant Shield and a CA compliant Glock called the SD9VE meanwhile a Ruger has actually let all their semi-auto pistols fall off the roster with nothing to replace them with.

***Therefore S&W has effectively just taken most of Ruger's market share in California.

The CA Shield is going for about $100 less than a Glock and their SD9VE is selling for under $400.

Good job S&W!
You must live in a strange twilight zone, where only 2 gun manufacturers exist...

In reality, Ruger's Market share, and S&W's market share (except for shield) will be split up amongst the several gun manufacturers who still choose to have guns on the roster.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-13-2014, 6:45 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Preiotstan, Commiefornia
Posts: 4,150
iTrader: 87 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittty View Post
So S&W announces that they are letting all their existing semi-auto pistols fall off the roster just as Ruger did however they made a couple exceptions...

They offer the CA compliant Shield and a CA compliant Glock called the SD9VE meanwhile a Ruger has actually let all their semi-auto pistols fall off the roster with nothing to replace them with.

***Therefore S&W has effectively just taken most of Ruger's market share in California.

The CA Shield is going for about $100 less than a Glock and their SD9VE is selling for under $400.

Good job S&W!
I am sure the Sigma is grabbing up a whole lot of the market
__________________
**Nor Cal Practical Precision Rifle Club**Spartan Precision**Vortex Optics**Seekins Precision**CS Tactical**MTG Firearms**Sportoptics.com**Libertyoptics.com**
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-13-2014, 7:43 PM
Murmur Murmur is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SD North County
Posts: 522
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
They are getting their just desserts from when Bill Ruger stepped up in favor of the orig AW ban since his Mini 14 wasn't affected he gobbled up a lot of the market.
Yup - some say that's old history and Bill is dead, but I don't agree. I didn't buy a Ruger back when they were on the roster and don't wish I had now that they are off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-13-2014, 7:44 PM
Murmur Murmur is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SD North County
Posts: 522
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
Both, Ruger and S&W didn't do it on principle. It's rather their manufacturing or engineering component changes on the majority of the models, so they knew they had to do re-certification, which they would fail. If you check the roster, both S&W and Ruger added a couple of models to the roster recently (mostly different colors of the existing roster-ed models). So, it's not like they are against the roster on principle (otherwise, they would've called off all their modes immediately), it's more like they can't (or don't want to) add microstamping in order to keep their existing models on the roster.
Unless the roster is overturned, this will happen to the majority of the big gun manufacturers.
This is right on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-13-2014, 8:11 PM
Josh3239's Avatar
Josh3239 Josh3239 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 8,799
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

I believe they see the writing on the wall. Microstamping and the Roster will not survive court, or if it has to, the 9th Circuit.
__________________
Proud NRA Life Member As Of 2016


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, American socialist
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-13-2014, 8:32 PM
smittty smittty is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 8 / 90%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
I am sure the Sigma is grabbing up a whole lot of the market
Every time I've been at turners over the last 3-4 weeks I've seen customers with both the SD9 and a G19 on the counter. I didn't stick around to see what they bought but it looks good for S&W to have a customer compare their gun on the counter beside a Glock.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-13-2014, 9:00 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,493
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Didn't ruger build some new huge manufacturing facility out in Arizona within the past several years? If true, and that's where they're doing the majority of their manufacturing it looks like they're looking at fleeing the anti liberty blue states. Remember they're a Connecticut based company.

And as mentioned earlier, they knew their guns would need recert anyways if they changed tooling or whatever. It was a fait a compli anyways. Ruger just gets to make a big deal of it.

I like ruger. Own several from them. Old. New. Etc. I support the action. And yes, the fewer the better anyways. It exposes roster for what it is, which is a backdoor ban.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-13-2014, 9:22 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,732
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I see a lot of misinfo on this thread.

Nobody "let" guns fall off the Roster. Modern gun companies were doing manufacturing properly and trying to comply with DOJ when rug was pulled out under them for multiple reasons.

Instead, DOJ holds that even trivial ongoing slight mfg changes make the gun a "new gun" that requires re-Rostering, and thus requires microstamping implementation on pistols. Furthermore, even identical parts made on identical machines on identical materials - but done at a new address/location - are regarded as a substantive change that requires re-Rostering (and thus microstamping on semiauto pistols).

Modern manufacturing processes include continuous improvement - and minor tweaks for optimal product and production. DOJ, by contrast, wants products frozen in time in which even safety features cannot be added!

The new S&W M&P Shield 9/40 and SD9/40VE pistols went thru their improvement processes and were tested and Rostered before microstamping became regulatorily required recently. S&W has specifically stated that they will keep these guns 'frozen', since they have the latest improvements, for the CA market.

Ruger had largely the same situation but didn't get 'new' gun variations Rostered/frozen before the microstamping requirement. Just luck of the draw in timing and the way corp. manufacturing plans fell...

.... So please don't 'blame' anyone than DOJ. The S&W vs Ruger (vs other brands too) is just a result of timings, filings and the "way the chips fall".
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 04-13-2014 at 9:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-13-2014, 9:31 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,165
iTrader: 65 / 99%
Default

I wish all the gun companies would stop playing the stupid "roster" game.. would make things easier in the long run...
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.