jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/10/86)
Article: 10:19 I saw that item in the Rifleman that came in Friday's mail, after I had asked the questions on the XGI (I guess it's really "eye" and not "one"). I'd really love to read a writeup of just what went on at Ruger regarding this piece. It seems odd to me that such a "standard" design (one based on the Garand/M-14 lineage) would cause such design and implementation problems as to result in a product with marginal reliability and functionality. The only thing I can guess is that the various cost-cutting and production efficiency modifications that would have made the retail price of this rifle more reasonable than other paramilitary .308's were the cause of the problems. It would be an interesting and valuable piece of industrial history, and a good case study, to have all this written up in detail. There's a lot of firearms-industry history like this that never gets revealed, sad to say... Regards, Will
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/10/86)
Article: 10:26 I saw that item in the Rifleman that came in Friday's mail, after I had asked the questions on the XGI (I guess it's really "eye" and not "one"). I'd really love to read a writeup of just what went on at Ruger regarding this piece. It seems odd to me that such a "standard" design (one based on the Garand/M-14 lineage) would cause such design and implementation problems as to result in a product with marginal reliability and functionality. The only thing I can guess is that the various cost-cutting and production efficiency modifications that would have made the retail price of this rifle more reasonable than other paramilitary .308's were the cause of the problems. It would be an interesting and valuable piece of industrial history, and a good case study, to have all this written up in detail. There's a lot of firearms-industry history like this that never gets revealed, sad to say... Regards, Will