CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 11 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES As of October 1, 2011, the Company was a defendant in approximately three (3) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. Lawsuits involving the Company’s products generally fall into one of two categories: (i) Those that claim damages from the Company related to allegedly defective product design and/or manufacture which stem from a specific incident. Pending lawsuits and claims are based principally on the theory of “strict liability” but also may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, and other legal theories; or (ii) Those brought by cities or other governmental entities, and individuals against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties in the commission of homicides, suicides and other shootings involving juveniles and adults. As to lawsuits of the first type, management believes that, in every case involving firearms, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. The only remaining lawsuit of the second type is the lawsuit filed by the City of Gary. The complaint in that case seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. The suit alleges, among other claims, negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent distribution and marketing, negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company’s products. Market share allegations have been held inapplicable by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Trade Associations’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted on October 12, 2000. The remaining defendants’ (manufacturers’ and retailers’) motions to dismiss were granted on January 21, 2001. The City filed a second amended complaint as a matter of right on January 22, 2001 and defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. On March 13, 2001, the trial court dismissed the City’s Second Amended Complaint on the bases expressed in its original dismissal order. On September 20, 2002, the Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the City’s Complaint as to the manufacturers and some retailers, against whom no factual allegations of illegal conduct were pled. On December 23, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the case. On November 23, 2005, a motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to the PLCAA. On October 23, 2006, Judge Pete issued an opinion holding the PLCAA unconstitutional as violating due process in its retroactive application and the separation of powers. Defendants filed a motion to the Court of Appeals asking that it accept interlocutory appeal. The motion was granted on February 15, 2007. On October 29, 2007, the Indiana Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the PLCAA does not apply to the City’s claims. A petition for rehearing was filed in the Appellate Court on November 28, 2007. The petition was denied on January 9, 2008. A Petition to Transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana was filed on February 8, 2008. On January 12, 2009, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the Petition to Transfer. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking for review of the Indiana Court of Appeals decision was not filed. In addition to the foregoing, on August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007. On October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This matter is based upon the same facts and basic allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund litigation. On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters. On January 11, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010. The defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010. Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19, 2010. Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010. On February 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The matter is ongoing. Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage. The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period. Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case. Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because the Company’s experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in the Company’s product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims-handling expenses on an ongoing basis. A range of reasonably possible loss relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $0.0 million and $7.7 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability that the Company might be required to incur in these cases (regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

9 Months Ended

Oct. 01, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 11 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

As of October 1, 2011, the Company was a defendant in approximately three (3) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims.

Lawsuits involving the Company’s products generally fall into one of two categories:

(i)

Those that claim damages from the Company related to allegedly defective product design and/or manufacture which stem from a specific incident. Pending lawsuits and claims are based principally on the theory of “strict liability” but also may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, and other legal theories; or

(ii)

Those brought by cities or other governmental entities, and individuals against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties in the commission of homicides, suicides and other shootings involving juveniles and adults.

As to lawsuits of the first type, management believes that, in every case involving firearms, the allegations are unfounded, and that the shootings and any results therefrom were due to negligence or misuse of the firearms by third-parties or the claimant, and that there should be no recovery against the Company.

The only remaining lawsuit of the second type is the lawsuit filed by the City of Gary. The complaint in that case seeks damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and other services as well as punitive damages. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. The suit alleges, among other claims, negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent distribution and marketing, negligence per se and deceptive advertising. The case does not allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company’s products. Market share allegations have been held inapplicable by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Trade Associations’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted on October 12, 2000. The remaining defendants’ (manufacturers’ and retailers’) motions to dismiss were granted on January 21, 2001. The City filed a second amended complaint as a matter of right on January 22, 2001 and defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. On March 13, 2001, the trial court dismissed the City’s Second Amended Complaint on the bases expressed in its original dismissal order. On September 20, 2002, the Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the City’s Complaint as to the manufacturers and some retailers, against whom no factual allegations of illegal conduct were pled. On December 23, 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the case.

On November 23, 2005, a motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to the PLCAA. On October 23, 2006, Judge Pete issued an opinion holding the PLCAA unconstitutional as violating due process in its retroactive application and the separation of powers. Defendants filed a motion to the Court of Appeals asking that it accept interlocutory appeal. The motion was granted on February 15, 2007. On October 29, 2007, the Indiana Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the PLCAA does not apply to the City’s claims. A petition for rehearing was filed in the Appellate Court on November 28, 2007. The petition was denied on January 9, 2008. A Petition to Transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana was filed on February 8, 2008. On January 12, 2009, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the Petition to Transfer. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking for review of the Indiana Court of Appeals decision was not filed.

In addition to the foregoing, on August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007. On October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al. pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This matter is based upon the same facts and basic allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund litigation. On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters. On January 11, 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010. The defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010. Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19, 2010. Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010. On February 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The matter is ongoing.

Punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims. Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liability accruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made after July 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for losses exceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of $10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might be brought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000, which are excluded from coverage.

The Company management monitors the status of known claims and the product liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast the outcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion of management, after consultation with special and corporate counsel, it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company, but may have a material impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular period.

Product liability claim payments are made when appropriate if, as, and when claimants and the Company reach agreement upon an amount to finally resolve all claims. Legal costs are paid as the lawsuits and claims develop, the timing of which may vary greatly from case to case. A time schedule cannot be determined in advance with any reliability concerning when payments will be made in any given case.

Provision is made for product liability claims based upon many factors related to the severity of the alleged injury and potential liability exposure, based upon prior claim experience. Because the Company’s experience in defending these lawsuits and claims is that unfavorable outcomes are typically not probable or estimable, only in rare cases is an accrual established for such costs. In most cases, an accrual is established only for estimated legal defense costs. Product liability accruals are periodically reviewed to reflect then-current estimates of possible liabilities and expenses incurred to date and reasonably anticipated in the future. Threatened product liability claims are reflected in the Company’s product liability accrual on the same basis as actual claims; i.e., an accrual is made for reasonably anticipated possible liability and claims-handling expenses on an ongoing basis.

A range of reasonably possible loss relating to unfavorable outcomes cannot be made. However, in product liability cases in which a dollar amount of damages is claimed, the amount of damages claimed, which totaled $0.0 million and $7.7 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability that the Company might be required to incur in these cases

(regardless of the likelihood or reasonable probability of any or all of this amount being awarded to claimants) as a result of adverse judgments that are sustained on appeal.