>>37407737Reading comprehension much?
Try reading something and making reasoned, logical inferences from what is actually written, not from scenarios you concoct in your head.
I said "when they do break" which means I'm talking about real life, not some fantastical theoretical scenario about what MIGHT happen IF they got a massive military contract.
I ran a shop for years, biggest shop in my state, or any surrounding state. We were a factory service center for just about every major gun company that has factory-authorized service centers, as opposed to companies that want all guns shipped back to them for service. Availability of factory parts for the Ruger P series was always a problem.
Sure, Ruger might have chosen to change that if they got a military contract, but if you speak to any US military armorer who has had to service pistols, you know how hard it is to get spare parts through the supply chain due to military bureaucracy.
Our gunsmith would roll his eyes when another P series gun came in for repair, because customers always expect every gun repair to be free, and immediate. The cheaper the gun, the greater this expectation seems to be.
While our head gunsmith had the knowledge to work on them, he can't do WARRANTY work on them, because Ruger chooses not to have a warranty. Their policy is to stand behind their product, but offer no written warranty, due to the legal hassles that entails. That means every gun needs to be shipped back. Which means they are sluggish to respond to any request from a gunsmith who wants to order parts.
Secondarily:
>I personally believe that even if Ruger's product did have service life issues it probably still would have been less than half the cost of the Beretta so still a win.What do you base this on? Your many years experience working in the gun industry? Or have you been involved in the military procurement process. Please tell us what grand life experience gives your belief in this issue any credibility?
