quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
the LCP (a keltec licensed knockoff)

Actually, from what I'm able to see, KT never licensed the P3AT design which is why the LCP is a virtual part-by part copy.

As far as the comments about the P3AT being not great, I would have to say the main reason is that the .380 round is *TOO MUCH* for this tiny, light gun. This pistol was based off the P-32 which IMO the .32 round shines in. It's the perfect round for the size and weight of the pistol. I have the P-32 and it's actually enjoyable to shoot while my Dad has a P3AT and it's brutal in comparison.

As far as the OP, I think the two companies are doing just fine on their own; they are not the same companies and don't want to be, one is much larger and older and the other is much smaller and younger and more cutting edge with their designs.

From my experience, maybe they should hire the Keltic designers and idea people... but I would suggest they stay way clear of the actual engineers....

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Does Ruger have engineers?

They seem to only make things other people already do. I guess they're letting others do the R&D.

The LCP was pretty much a Kel-Tec.
LCP with sights, other people were making.
Take down 10/22, other people were making.
Alloy upper 22/45, other people were making.
480 Bisley, other people were making.
454 Bisley, other people were making.
44spl GP100, other people were making.
10mm GP100, other people were making.

Kinda like all those boutique 1911 makers out there today, huh?

Ruger must have some good patent lawyers on retainer, so why bother headhunting Kel-Tec's designers/ engineers?