CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	9 Months Ended
Oct. 01, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 10 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES As of October 1, 2016, the Company was a defendant in four (4) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into three categories: traditional product liability litigation, patent litigation and municipal litigation, discussed in turn below. Traditional Product Liability Litigation Two of the four lawsuits mentioned above involve claims for damages related to allegedly defective products due to their design and/or manufacture. The lawsuits stem from specific incidents of personal injury and are based on traditional product liability theories such as strict liability, negligence and/or breach of warranty. The Company management believes the allegations in these cases are unfounded, that the incidents are unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearms, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. Patent Litigation Davies Innovations, Inc. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is a patent litigation suit originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. The case subsequently was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New Hampshire. The suit is based upon alleged patent infringement as the plaintiff claims that certain features of the Ruger SR-556 and SR-762 modern sporting rifles infringe its patent. The complaint seeks a judgment of infringement and unspecified monetary damages including costs, fees and treble damages. The Company management believes the allegations in this case are unfounded, that there is no infringement of plaintiff’s patent, that plaintiff’s patent is invalid, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. The Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the action,which is scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2016. Municipal Litigation Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties. There is only one remaining lawsuit of this type, filed by the City of Gary in Indiana State Court, over seventeen years ago. 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. After a long procedural history, the case was scheduled for trial on June 15, 2009. The case was not tried on that date and was largely dormant until a status conference was held on July 27, 2015. At that time, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, for defendants to answer, and for defendants to file dispositive motions. The plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline. Last year, Indiana passed a new law, Indiana Code § 34-12-3-1, (the “Indiana Immunity Statute”), which applies to the City's case. The defendants have filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under the Indiana Immunity Statute and asking the court to re-visit the Court of Appeals' earlier decision holding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) inapplicable to the City's claims. The United States and the Indiana Attorney General filed motions and briefs in intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the PLCAA and the Indiana Immunity Statute, respectively. A hearing on the motions to intervene was set for October 12, 2016. The court subsequently granted a Joint Motion to Stay Resolution of Manufacturers’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for six months or until the KS&E Sports v. Runnels case is decided by the Indiana Supreme Court, whichever is earlier. The court also vacated the October 12^th hearing on motions to intervene by the United States and the Indiana Attorney General, given the City’s consent to such motions. Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals 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 product liability 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 losses 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 $0.1 million and $0.0 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability 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, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 10 - CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

As of October 1, 2016, the Company was a defendant in four (4) lawsuits and is aware of certain other such claims. The lawsuits fall into three categories: traditional product liability litigation, patent litigation and municipal litigation, discussed in turn below.

Traditional Product Liability Litigation

Two of the four lawsuits mentioned above involve claims for damages related to allegedly defective products due to their design and/or manufacture. The lawsuits stem from specific incidents of personal injury and are based on traditional product liability theories such as strict liability, negligence and/or breach of warranty.

The Company management believes the allegations in these cases are unfounded, that the incidents are unrelated to the design or manufacture of the firearms, and that there should be no recovery against the Company.

Patent Litigation

Davies Innovations, Inc. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is a patent litigation suit originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. The case subsequently was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New Hampshire. The suit is based upon alleged patent infringement as the plaintiff claims that certain features of the Ruger SR-556 and SR-762 modern sporting rifles infringe its patent. The complaint seeks a judgment of infringement and unspecified monetary damages including costs, fees and treble damages.

The Company management believes the allegations in this case are unfounded, that there is no infringement of plaintiff’s patent, that plaintiff’s patent is invalid, and that there should be no recovery against the Company. The Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the action,which is scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2016.

Municipal Litigation

Municipal litigation generally includes those cases brought by cities or other governmental entities against firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third-parties.

There is only one remaining lawsuit of this type, filed by the City of Gary in Indiana State Court, over seventeen years ago. 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.

After a long procedural history, the case was scheduled for trial on June 15, 2009. The case was not tried on that date and was largely dormant until a status conference was held on July 27, 2015. At that time, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, for defendants to answer, and for defendants to file dispositive motions. The plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint by the deadline.

Last year, Indiana passed a new law, Indiana Code § 34-12-3-1, (the “Indiana Immunity Statute”), which applies to the City's case. The defendants have filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under the Indiana Immunity Statute and asking the court to re-visit the Court of Appeals' earlier decision holding the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) inapplicable to the City's claims.

The United States and the Indiana Attorney General filed motions and briefs in intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the PLCAA and the Indiana Immunity Statute, respectively. A hearing on the motions to intervene was set for October 12, 2016.

The court subsequently granted a Joint Motion to Stay Resolution of Manufacturers’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for six months or until the KS&E Sports v. Runnels case is decided by the Indiana Supreme Court, whichever is earlier. The court also vacated the October 12^th hearing on motions to intervene by the United States and the Indiana Attorney General, given the City’s consent to such motions.

Summary of Claimed Damages and Explanation of Product Liability Accruals

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 product liability 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 losses 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 $0.1 million and $0.0 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, are set forth as an indication of possible maximum liability 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.