I recently purchase a new Ruger SP-101 in 9mm at the local gun shop. They had two in the store and I inspected both of them.
The first one, with a later serial number, felt like someone put grit in the inner workings. It functioned but felt horrible.
The second one had a lower serial number that per Ruger shipped in 2022. It felt fine and mechanically it appeared to be fine based on a non firing inspection. However, the general fit and finish wasn't at the same standard as the SP-101 in .357 Mag that I bought in 2015. However, I bought it anyway as it's intended to be a shooter not a safe queen, so the lower standard of finish wasn't necessarily a deal breaker.
But it's a lower level of quality.
When I arrived home I discovered there were no included moon clips. I called the shop to see if they were mislaid. They called back and said they were not able to find them and they also looked in the box for the other SP-101 in 9mm and it was also missing the moon clips.
That's a QA fail.
I called Ruger and they did send me a set of three and got them to me in a couple days, so that wasn't bad. However, one of them had globs of melted metal on the bottom side from when it had been (badly) laser cut.
That's another QA fail. Worse, it was Ruger's chance to shine and make up for the inconvenience with extra moon clips, a hat, a tee shirt, or even a free sticker. But they sent nothing other than the little Manila envelope with two acceptable and one defective moon clip.
When I got it to the range, I discovered it would often hang up on one chamber when a slow DA trigger pull was used, and it would occasionally hang up a second adjacent chamber. It would cock successfully via the hammer on all cylinders for a single action shot, and once a round that had previously hung up had been fired with would successfully cycle all the way around with slow DA trigger pulls.
It did this with both the Ruger moon clips and the TK Custom clips that Ruger sells on their site. Again, it only exhibited the problem with unfired factory ammunition.
It did this with Federal, CCI and Remington factory ammunition, so I doubt it is ammunition related. And unless something has changed Ruger uses CCI ammunition for its testing.
That's a QA fail.
I called Ruger to get an RMA and sent it in. That was a bit over two weeks ago. I called them this morning and was advised they have taken no action on it yet. When I asked about turn around time, they advised it was 4-6 weeks. That's a big change from their former 2 week turn around time.
——
The last time I sent in a revolver to Ruger it was a 4.2" SP-101 in .22 LR shipped in 2014. It had severe leading issues from an improperly cut forcing cone. I shipped it back at a time when they were not providing shipping labels but were instead reimbursing for shipping. Fed Ex second day air cost me $75. I never got reimbursed as I enclosed the original receipt as directed, but they lost it and would not accept a copy.
They sent it back in about 2 weeks with a note they had adjusted the ejector star, which was not the problem. But to do my due diligence I took it back to the range to test fire and again, after about 12 rounds it was leading so badly it was key holing.
I sent it back again (this time they did send me a shipping label) and they advised they would "escalate" it to a supervisor as their supervisors were trained gunsmiths (which told me their first level staff are not). After about a month they called to tell me it was not factory repairable. They gave me the option of a refund, I provided them with the original receipt. Since I was already out $75 due to Ruger losing a receipt I wasn't really hot on this option. The other option was they could ship a new replacement to a local FFL. I opted for that and gave them the FFL information.
After a month I called them to inquire about the SP-101 they were supposed to ship. They then, for the first time, advised they would ship one when they did the next production run of 4.2" .22LR SP-101s. They then advised they expected that would happen in 5-6 more months. In short, they did not hold any back at the factory or warehouse for the inevitable exchanges, not were able to just have one of their distributors send me one, or have the local gun shop, a Ruger Dealer, hand me the other one he had in stock and be reimbursed by Ruger. No…I was supposed to wait 5-6 more months.
The replacement eventually arrived in October after buying the first revolver in January. It shot ok, but was at best mediocre and I immediately traded it in on a S&W 17.
That's a massive customer service fail.
——
I never thought I'd say it, but over this same 10 year period I also also purchased new, a Taurus 905, a Taurus 942, and a Taurus 856 Executive. The 905 had to go back to the factory as the cylinder would not close with the supplied moon clips. I was given a refund and then bought it 3 months later when it arrived back in the shop. The 905 and 856 Executive have been excellent shooting revolvers right out of the box. The Executive has a better trigger than any of the many S&W and Kimber revolvers I own with the exception of a S&W Performance shop 625.
Consequently, I don't think Ruger quality assurance or customer service is any better than Taurus. Their revolvers just cost about 40% more, and the fit and finish isn't as good as the upper tier Taurus revolvers.
