Ruger’s New Guns.




23 thoughts on “Ruger’s New Guns.”

  1. I’m not thrilled with how flagrantly they copied kel-Tec with their LCP. But no big. People who like the design are usually savvy enough to choose the original.

      1. It’s patent infringement. And it’s no big to me because it’s no big to Kel-Tec. Kel-Tec won’t take them to court so I don’t need to get riled up about it. What else can I do besides not buy their copied products? Use angrier words when discussion it? Think Ruger cares what adjectives I choose?
        If I want a pistol of that pattern, I buy the Kel-Tec, not the Ruger. That’s what I did. That has a real effect on them.
        What is more distasteful to me is the way gunrags will give glowing reviews of the Ruger copies and never mention their interesting similarity to the Kel-Tecs. Gunrags stink.

        1. It would be patent infringement if KelTec actually had a patent on something in the P3AT to be infringed.

          The fact is, there is no such patent. There’s nothing in the P3AT that Kel-Tec didn’t borrow from some other, earlier design.

          That goes for everything else Ruger has ‘stolen’. It is no different from the 1911, AR-15, Mauser 98, Single Action Army clones made by almost every other gun company on the planet. Once the patents expire it’s a free for all, and as the patent system was originally intended it’s *supposed* to be a free for all.

          1. It certainly is a free for all. And I was free to choose the Kel-Tec that was made by Kel-Tec.
            That doesn’t mean I’m going to give Ruger a hearty hand shake for their innovation.

  2. IMO it’s more trade-dress infrigement than patent infringement. The internals don’t have to exactly copy another design, but if the outside appearance can be mistaken for another brand then it’s trade-dress.

    1. What kind of *distinctive* and *non-functional* features did Ruger copy? There’s very little there that would qualify for trade dress protection.

  3. I held the Kel-Tec, I held the Ruger. I researched both, the Kel for a longer time than the Ruger. I own the Ruger. It just felt better and looked better made than the Kel. The finish is very thin and will eventually visibly age beyond it’s years though. Copy or not, I like the Ruger better. Ruger haters are gonna hate.

    I am not brand loyal to anyone. I buy what fits my needs and price. Like said above, same as 1911, ARs, Mausers etc. If Kel-Tec doesn’t care, then why should I? No one bitches about Dan Wesson, Wilson Combat or Remmington making 1911s, Or non-Armalite companies making AR-15s.

    1. my thoughts exactly. although i have no use for a tactical 22 and have a 1911 already. you can only reinvent the wheel so many times then you are just repeating the same thing. as far as the lcp and kel tec 380’s they feel like water pistols to me. i chose the lcr in 38 special as a ccw, it is a little thick for pocket carry but it works well enough and it’s grip is more comfportable to shoot.
      now what i really want is a lcr 22.

    2. So it is okay to steal a design if you make it well. Okay….
      And yes… Keltec does care. But Ruger has more attorneys than KT has employees. KT can’t afford litigation that would last years and cost millions. Ruger knows this which is why they stepped on KT twice in a row.

      1. How are ARs and 1911s different George? Without any IP protection, anyone is free to copy them. Same goes for Kel-Tec.

        1. In one case, patents ran out. In the other patents were stepped on. Legal crap asside, it ethicaly questionable. It’s low. And Ruger knows it… Some employees at Ruger know it too.

          1. There was no patent to be stepped on. The only things Kel-Tec has patents on are a folding bayonet and the dual pivoting extractors in the RFB.

            The LCP came out 20 years after the Grendel P10 (which is what the P32, P3AT, and LCP are all based on). Even if it had been patented, the patent would have been expired by that time.

            Ethically, how long is an acceptable time to wait for someone to make a derivative design based on one that’s old or unoriginal enough to not have any legal protections?

  4. Does anyone else remember George W. Nonte? Years back he speculated on a 1911 type safety, when pushed down, would drop the hammer to DA.

    He also wanted a DAO semi-auto BUT with the ability to cock the hammer and turn it into a repeating Single Action.

    Interesting that some of his sketches look like the Ruger SR9.

    Who wonders what he would think about the .40 S&W

  5. So, What is so special about the Kel-tec to make it different and therefore so original? How is it that making a small .32, .380, or 9mm makes it so different? I don’t see some revolutionary locking barrel (Beretta vs Mauser rotating barrel, Maybe Beretta paid to license the design?), or offset feed ramp like the Kahr. It is just a pistol that operates much like a Glock without the safe action trigger. The NAA guardian has a fixed barrel, so doesn’t that make it a copy of the Walther PPK? I have no issues with Kel-tec, but if I find a better made product for just a little more that doesn’t have (need?) a lot of home grown “fixes” I will buy it. I just didn’t have a need for a subcompact .380 until the LCP happened.

  6. I have owned both the P3AT and LCP and for all intent purposes for which they are designed, they are the same gun..different finish levels. I have had very good customer service from Kel Tec so they have that in their corner…personally given the choice I will be getting another LCP because I can afford the price difference and prefer the finish of it, ethics or legalities aside one thing I think Ruger did do was produce enough to fulfill the masses desire for it…

  7. Don’t for get the S&W MP22 for tacticool 22’s they fire very well, fit and finish is S&W standard quality and it’s a bout as close to the original as you will find in a rimfire.

Leave a Reply to Huey Cancel reply
